Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Tuesday next.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Procurement (Employment Consequences)

Mr. Clemitson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence in formulating his defence procurement policies, what account he takes of employment consequences.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Frederick Mulley): Close attention is paid to the employment consequences of all defence expenditure, but the primary objective of defence procurement must be to ensure that the equipment needs of the Services are met in the most timely and cost-effective way.

Mr. Clemitson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those of us who advocate decreases in defence expenditure are as concerned about employment as those who advocate increased defence expenditure? Does he further agree that the American experience of relocating resources into non-defence uses and the suggestions put forward by the Lucas Aerospace shop stewards in this country give good cause for hoping that such a successful transfer of resources could take place?

Mr. Mulley: I completely accept my hon. Friend's sincerity in desiring not to reduce employment. I must point out that the transfer of work from the defence to the civil area is difficult. If there are opportunities for additional work in the civil area to deal with the quite unacceptable level of unemployment, I know that my right hon. Friends will be concerned to take such opportunities. This is not a matter strictly falling within my responsibilities.

Mr. Viggers: Is there any point in transferring the Services pay and records office to Glasgow, apart from transferring unemployment from Glasgow to other areas?

Mr. Mulley: The question of the dispersal of work from the Ministry of Defence, along with that from other Government Departments, was decided by the Government some time ago. I do not think that this leads to unemployment and I


cannot see how the subject arises on this Question.

Mr. Dalyell: What will be the role, in matters of procurement, of the defence committee of the Scottish Assembly whose formation was anounced in the House of Lords yesterday?

Mr. Mulley: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I did not realise that the Assembly, which has not yet been elected, had had its committees selected for it. As my hon. Friend knows, the Assembly does not have a devolved power or duty in respect of defence. I cannot help my hon. Friend about what may or may not be the function of a committee that may or may not be brought into being.

Mr. Churchill: The Secretary of State has on previous occasions admitted that no fewer than 218,000 jobs were to be lost as a result of the Labour Government's defence cuts. How far was this taken into account and how far were Labour Members below the Gangway consulted on this massive job destruction programme before it was embarked upon?

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, is a little prone to exaggeration.

Mr. Churchill: They are the right hon. Gentleman's figures.

Mr. Mulley: No Government would conceivably have gone through with the defence plans which the Government inherited dealing with forward expenditure. While employment is of paramount importance, we have, in the defence area, to tailor our defence procurement to the direct needs of the Services.

BAOR

Mr. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will increase the number of soldiers in the British Army of the Rhine.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): The manpower establishment of BAOR is kept under regular review. No decision to increase it has been taken.

Mr. Townsend: Is the Minister aware of the widespread feeling in BAOR that units are being asked to do more with fewer men? Will he confirm that some soldiers have been doing a 70-hour week,

and that BAOR has specifically asked for an extra 2,500 men?

Mr. Brown: I am not prepared to comment on reports of this nature on the number of soldiers that BAOR has or has not requested, or to disclose what proposals may or may not have been made.

Mr. Grocott: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to cost this and other proposals from the Opposition for increased defence expenditure? Will he give some estimate of what would be the effect on taxation of these additional costs?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. In fact, the Opposition are screaming for cuts in public expenditure all the time. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) is giving commitments which would cost goodness knows how many thousands of millions of pounds.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Since it is well known that large numbers of tanks have had to be put into mothballs because there are not enough men in BAOR to man them, how can the Under-Secretary dare to give such a complacent answer to my hon. Friend's Question? What is the Under-Secretary doing to remedy this disasterous situation?

Mr. Brown: On the main question, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Stretford on 17th April. If I were to spend time in replying to speculative Press reports with the hand of the hon. Member for Stretford behind them, I would be doing little or nothing else.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Since I know for a fact that those tanks have been put in mothballs, how can the Under-Secretary dare to atempt to deny that that is so?

Mr. Brown: Because the right hon. Gentleman well knows, since he held the senior office of Secretary of State for Defence in the last Tory Government, that this is not the sort of information that we discuss publicly.

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received regarding the non-eligibility for social security benefits of members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces serving in Germany.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am not aware of any formal representations on this matter, but I know that there has been concern in the Services. While this is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, since the relevant regulations apply to Service men and civilians alike, discussions have been held between this Department and DHSS since last year.

Mr. Goodhew: In that case, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that, although they pay United Kingdom income tax and, indeed, national insurance contributions, the members of the Armed Forces in Germany are not eligible for any social security benefits. Is not the Under-Secretary aware that there are many families whose tour has some time to go when a son finishes school, and he is suddenly unable to obtain employment in Germany, and cannot come home without his family, and has no social security benefits. What is the Under-Secretary doing about that?

Mr. Brown: I have already indicated that we have had discussions with the DHSS on the matter. The question of eligibility for benefits is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Churchill: Will the Minister explain why Forces in Germany, for example, have been charged full earnings-related national insurance contributions when they cannot derive the benefits? They cannot get the family income supplement. If they have teenage children of 16 or 17 who have just left school, they cannot draw unemployment benefit. This is doing the forces out of tens of pounds per week for which they would otherwise be eligible.

Mr. Brown: The discussions are mainly concerned with family income supplement, unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit. The first two are payable to the dependants in Germany only under restrictive conditions. The third item, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, is not payable at all.

Indian Ocean (Task Force)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the recent operations of the Royal Navy task force in the Indian Ocean.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy): The Royal Navy Task Group which crossed the Indian Ocean in March was on its way home to the United Kingdom after a series of visits to the Far East and Australia. While on passage through the area, the opportunity was taken to conduct routine exercises with ships of the United States and French navies.

Mr. Blaker: When the Under-Secretary visited the ships of this force, did he say, as has been reported, that as an economist he would not pay the Navy more because the Navy does not contribute to the national economy? What evidence can he cite that economists have contributed more in safeguarding the economy than the Royal Navy?

Mr. Duffy: There is absolutely no ground for that report or for the other report which appeared in the Daily Telegraph and was attributed to me. I pointed this out in a private letter to the editor. In so far as I entertain views on either of those two counts, as some Conservative Members know, I expressed those views publicly precisely to the contrary.

Expenditure

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an estimate of the number of additional jobs which will be provided in the United Kingdom and Scotland, respectively, as a result of the increase in defence expenditure.

Mr. Mulley: It will not be possible to work out in detail the employment implications of the defence budget targets for 1979–80 and 1980–81 until the programmes for those years have been fully drawn up.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a tendency over the past years to run down the number of defence jobs coming to the West of Scotland? In view of the fact that in that part of the United Kingdom we have more than the national average of unemployed, will he look at the position and try to reverse this trend?

Mr. Mulley: I shall, as my hon. Friend requests, look into the position. But he will know that, as a result of the Defence Review, we have greatly reduced the civilian manpower directly employed by


the Ministry of Defence. In placing defence contracts we have to follow the contractual procedures and to be guided by the timescale and the cost-effectiveness of the equipment that we wish to acquire.

Mr. Hooson: Will the Secretary of State give an indication of the increase in the number of personnel in the Armed Forces as a result of the increase in defence expenditure?

Mr. Mulley: We have not come yet to a final view about the expenditures for these two years, but I have already announced an increase in the Royal Marines by retaining 41 Commando. I have also increased the establishment of the Army by a composite battalion, and another 1,200 or so for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning I telephoned his office and that of each of his four ministerial colleagues to give them the page references in yesterday's House of Lords Official Report, where it is stated that the Scottish Assembly would set up an official defence committee? What relationship between the defence committee of the Scottish Assembly and the Ministry of Defence is there likely to be on the question of jobs?

Mr. Mulley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for telephoning my office and giving me the Hansard references. I confess that I do not take a line by line interest in the deliberations on the Scotland Bill in another place. But, of course, as I have already told my hon. Friend, defence is not a devolved subject under the Bill, and the Assembly will have neither powers nor responsibilities in this field. As to whether an Assembly that has still to be set up will have a defence committee, and what it may or may not do if it has one, my hon. Friend will have to restrain his impatience and await the development of events.

Mr. MacCormick: In view of the Question tabled by the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), will the Secretary of State confirm that the percentage of the defence expenditure actually spent in Scotland has been and still is unfairly low?

Mr. Mulley: As I have explained already, unfortunately it is not possible to place defence contracts on a sort of population

average basis. I have to go to firms which specialise in the production of aircraft, ships, or whatever it may be. Quite a number of ships are built in Scotland. I shall look again at the question of percentage, but I must try to get the best equipment for the forces at the best value, and this does not necessarily mean that expenditure can be spread regionally on an average basis in the way that all hon. Members might wish.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: If the right hon. Gentleman has any idea about what is happening in his Department, will he tell the House what has been the net decrease in defence jobs since the Labour Government came to power?

Mr. Mulley: Of course, defence jobs are outside my Department. I would not, without notice, be able to give an exact number. But at present between 270,000 and 300,000 people are directly involved in defence contracts for us and in our overseas sales. I would think that at least that number are involved indirectly on subcontracts. Therefore, defence still provides a substantial amount of highly technological employment.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Is the Secretary of State prepared to deny that at the very least, if we take civilian and military jobs together, his Government have cost at least 150,000 jobs?

Mr. Mulley: I cannot commit myself to a figure of that size without notice.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman should look at his own answers then.

Mr. Mulley: If the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) would listen a litle more and talk a little less, we should all be more satisfied and he might become more enlightened. I shall look at the number and write to the right hon. Gentleman.

Air Defences

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the defences of the United Kingdom against possible air attack.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): Yes, and, as I announced


in the recent defence debate, this Government are continuing to make considerable improvements in the air defence of this country.

Mr. Viggers: I congratulate the Minister because he must be one of the few people, apart from those behind the Warsaw Pact Iron Curtain, who is satisfied with our air defences. As we have not bought the Nike missile, and as we have not developed the Thunderbird missile, what defences do we have against supersonic bomber attack?

Mr. Wellbeloved: Before the hon. Gentleman starts criticising this Government about the state of the air defences of this country, he ought to look at the record. He will find that it was the Conservatives who dismantled and discarded the air defence capacity of this country. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what we have done to improve the air defences of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend announced the setting up of another squadron of VC10 tankers for air-to-air refuelling, which will considerably improve our air combat capability. We have announced the coming into service of Nimrod airborne early warning aircraft, the increase in our Rapier squadron and Bloodhound missiles, and a large number of other issues, all of which are restoring the ability of this country to defend itself after the actions of the Conservatives.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that if an unidentified civilian aircraft entered British air space it would not be shot down?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that a civilian aircraft entering our air space would not be shot down. We have well proven procedures. If an unidentified aircraft comes up on the radar screen, it is invariably intercepted. It would be signalled and radioed to follow our interceptor aircraft and land. If it did not respond, we would continue to shadow it until such times as we could get it safely to respond to our instructions.

Sir Anthony Royle: Since the Korean civilian airliner was over Russian air space for nearly one hour before the disgraceful attack took place by Soviet aircraft, can the Minister give the House

an assurance that no unidentified aircraft would stay for an hour over our air space before being identified by our early warning system?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House the assurance that our systems of air defence are such that any unidentified aircraft penetrating our air space could be intercepted, if that were the option we wished to exercise.

Mr. Grocott: Since it is impossible for my hon. Friend to answer questions about the vulnerability of our air defences without some estimate of the likelihood of an air attack, can he give the House his estimate of just how likely that is?

Mr. Wellbeloved: We must take a realistic view. I hope that the negotiations on disarmament will be successful. But we must not neglect the fact that the Soviet Union has increased its capacity to reach the whole of these islands with offensive aircraft. Therefore, in the event of war, we would be subject to air attack. That is why the Government are so anxious and efficient in trying to restore our air defence capacity.

Mr. Churchill: I am delighted to have the Minister's assurance that Britain's air defences are so much better than those of the Soviet Union. Indeed, I believe them to be such. But before making so much play of the strength of Rapier squadrons, can he confirm that there is only one Rapier squadron deployed at a British airfield and that there are plans for a second one? What plans does he have for a more substantial deployment?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that as a result of our activities there will be more Rapier squadrons deployed for the defence of our airfields than were left by his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). It is not my intention to bandy across the House matters which ought not to be so bandied about. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to act irresponsibly—as he does—in defence affairs, that is up to him.

United States Secretary of Defence

Mr. MacFarquhar: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the United States Secretary of Defence

Mr. Mulley: I next expect to meet Dr. Brown, the United States Secretary of State for Defence, at the ministerial meeting of the Defence Planing Committee in Brussels on 18th-19th May 1978.

Mr. MacFarquhar: When my right hon. Friend next meets Dr. Brown, will he confirm with him that all American nuclear weapons situated in this country are equipped with electronic safety catches and insensitive high explosive triggers? Will he tell the House why he was so unforthcoming in his answers on this subject, which is quite common knowledge in discussions in the United States?

Mr. Mulley: With regard to the answers that I gave my hon. Friend—I think on 13th April—I followed the practice of successive Governments over many years with regard to classified information in the nuclear area. When I see Dr. Brown, I shall certainly tell him of my hon. Friend's concern. But from my own visit to the United States Air Force, and my own inquiries, I am satisfied that all reasonable precautions as are possible are exercised by the United States Air Force in this country.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the Secretary of State be using his meeting with Dr. Brown to tell him which airfield the Government have decided shall take the American KC135 tanker aircraft? Will he also be telling him that on environmental grounds it will not be RAF Greenham?

Mr. Mulley: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is trying to jump the gun. Important though this matter is to his constituents, I do not think this would be appropriate for a NATO Defence Planning Committee agenda. However, I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman says. As he knows, I met a deputation from his constituency which was led by himself. We shall take note of all the points that were made to us and as soon as possible I shall announce a decision.

Mr. Flannery: When my right lion. Friend meets the Secretary of Defence, will he congratulate him on the fact that the United States are not going ahead with the neutron bomb? Can he assure us that no one in the United States, or in the Tory Party in this country, is planning a bomb which will destroy trade unionists and Socialists?

Mr. Mulley: I shall certainly convey my hon. Friend's congratulations to Secretary Brown. But I am afraid that on this subject or any other I would hesitate to give any assurance on behalf of the Tory Party because, as I hope the electors of this country have now come to realise, there is an immense difference between Tory protestations and promises before elections and their performances in office.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Why during the last few months did not the Government seek to help President Carter with regard to the neutron bomb by telling him what the Government know to be true—that Europe needs this weapon?

Mr. Mulley: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear on a number of occasions, there has always been the question of the conflict and question of balance between the military advantage on the one hand and the arms control considerations on the other. As the Prime Minister has said, we accept and support President Carter's decision. I think that is right in the sense of this particular situation and in the sense of the alliance. That is far better than the irresponsible attack on President Carter which the right hon. Gentleman made at the time of the decision.

Armed Forces (Bargaining Machinery)

Mr. Ron Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in regard to the setting up of effective collective bargaining machinery covering members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces.

Mr. Mulley: The current debate on this issue began last November. Since then, apart from parliamentary representations, I have received resolutions from two constituency parties of the Labour Party and I have seen a delegation from the Asociation of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs. I have also received 10 letters from members of the public which offered comments on the subject of corporate representation for the Armed Forces, but none of these was in favour of the idea.

Mr. Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has a paternalistic attitude


which we in the Labour Party should not accept? Does he agree that the sooner we have effective trade union organisation and effective collective bargaining machinery to deal with wages and conditions of members of the Armed Forces, the better?

Mr. Mulley: I do not accept that the Review Body is a paternalistic institution. It has very clear terms of reference. Its job is to compare Armed Forces pay with that in comparable civilian occupations, plus the X factor. It does this with great competence. We are indebted to the distinguished body of people who serve the Armed Forces and the nation in this way.
The problem of Armed Forces pay, like that of many other pay sectors, has not been caused by any lack of representations on behalf of the forces by myself or the chiefs. They have been caused entirely, and, in my view, rightly, by the operations of the pay policy.

Mr. David Walder: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the Services the view is not, as it is among trade unionists in the House, that a trade union is the solution to all man's ills, from dandruff to sleeping sickness?

Mr. Mulley: In the representations that I have received I have heard nothing about dandruff or sleeping sickness.

Mr. Litterick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at least in principle the denial of the rights of trade union organisation to members of the Armed Forces is a denial of their maturity, sophistication and responsibility as citizens? Does he agree that to place them at a disadvantage with, for instance, those unfortunate people who work for the Grunwicks of this world is a gratuitous insult?

Mr. Mulley: I do not accept that view. I endorse the view expressed by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder). From my experience and inquiries I find that the great majority of members of the Armed Forces do not believe that their position would be improved if they belonged to trade unions. Some of my hon. Friends might think that that view is misguided.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Armed Forces certainly

do not want trade unions? What they want is Ministers who will support them and who are effective in so doing. Is he further aware that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends will be judged on their effectiveness by the statement to be made this afternoon?

Mr. Mulley: I am too modest to comment on the latter part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. I accept his general view. In my view, most members of the Armed Forces do not feel that their position would be enhanced if they belonged to trade unions.

NATO Defence Ministers

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the NATO Defence Ministers.

Mr. Mulley: I shall next meet the other NATO Defence Ministers at the ministerial meeting of the Defence Planning Committee in Brussels on 18th-19th May.

Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to his colleagues that he and the British Government will not support any argument in favour of deploying the neutron bomb within NATO? Will he also make it clear to his colleagues that arguments in favour of this weapon by Conservative Party spokesmen are resented deeply by millions of British citizens?

Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend's first question is unlikely to arise. My sense of the discussions at the most recent meeting of the Nuclear Planning Group was that its members accept President Carter's decision, as I do. I am not sure that the views of Conservative spokesmen would he of major interest to my ministerial colleagues.

Mr. Jim Spicer: At that meeting, will the Secretary of State be pressing upon his colleagues how vitally important it is for the future of our NATO defence strategy that the arms embargo on Turkey should be lifted at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Mulley: I think that the hon. Member is referring to the embargo by the United States. I do not know whether that will come up directly or bilaterally. As the hon. Member knows, discussions


are taking place between the two countries. We shall be looking at the longterm defence plans which are to be submitted to the Summit. Obviously this matter will be relevant in that context.

Defence Minister of Iran

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to meet the Defence Minister of Iran.

Mr. Mulley: No. Sir.

Mr. Flannery: When my right hon. Friend does meet the Defence Minister of Iran, will he convey to him that there is deep feeling throughout this country about the number of students who have to cover their faces when they demonstrate against that terrible regime because of brutalities, tortures and reprisals against their relatives? Will he look carefully at any defence agreements that we have with that Defence Minister and ensure that the weapons are not turned inwards against the democrats in Iran instead of being used for legitimate defence purposes in that country?

Mr. Mulley: I am not sure that it would be the Defence Minister's responsibility to deal with the activities of students. We sell arms to Iran, which is a respected ally in CENTO. I feel that there is no reason why we should reconsider that decision.

Mr. Wall: Is it not clear that it is in our common interest that Iran should increase its forces in areas such as the Gulf and the Indian Ocean? Should we not do everything that we can to support our allies in CENTO?

Mr. Mulley: I agree that this is important. The leadership that Iran has established in that part of the world and the real international status that the Shah has achieved by his long experience are assets for stability in that difficult part of the world.

Inchterf

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make an official visit to the defence establishment at Inchterf.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: My right hon. Friend has no plans for such a visit at present.

Mr. Canavan: If the Minister cannot visit Inchterf personally, will he send one of his senior officials to investigate complaints from local people about the excessive noise caused by the firing of ammunition there? If nothing can be done to reduce the noise level at source, will the Government consider providing special sound insulation in the houses? Is he aware that people complain to me that it is like living next to a battlefield?

Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend and I have the greatest sympathy for the people who suffer from the noise of this establishment. But I must remind my hon. Friend that the establishment, which was built before the First World War was there long before any of the existing housing estates. If my hon. Friend has any details about property which has suffered damage as a result of the noise, I should be glad if he would forward them to me. I shall then have the matter examined by the claims division of the Ministry.
Under the provisions of the 1972 White Paper on development and compensation, I am entitled to make grants, but only when the defence installations concerned have been set up or extended since 1969 to allow greater use. That does not apply in this case.

Mrs. Bain: Since I am one of the local residents subject to the noise at Inchterf, could the Minister say when we can expect a report from the Property Services Agency which is looking into the alleviation of noise at source? What level of expenditure does the Minister envisage for the sound-proofing of houses, and how does it compare with the profits made at Inchterf?

Mr. Brown: We expect that the report will be available in August. I cannot say what the results will be. Until we get the recommendations, I cannot comment on what provision will be made.

RAF Boulmer

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will pay an official visit to RAF Boulmer.

Mr. Wellbeloved: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present.

Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if he had made that visit today or in recent weeks he would have


found keen interest in the statement that we all await on Services pay? Does he recognise that it will not be simply what is done to restore the lost comparability that is important but what guarantees can be given that comparability will be maintained in the future? Does he also recognise that increased accommodation costs bear very heavily on those who have very little freedom of choice about where they live, because of their work?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to anticipate the statement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making today. There are many other aspects affecting RAF Boulmer and other RAF stations, apart from pay and problems of that nature, such as insulation of property and trying to deal with the heating costs, about which the hon. Gentleman has written to me on a number of occasions. I appreciate his help and the efforts he has made on behalf of his RAF constituents.

Defence Scientific Advisory Council

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the membership and responsibilities of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The Defence Scientific Advisory Council is established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of State for Defence on scientific and technological matters of concern to the Ministry of Defence. The chairman and other independent members all have distinguished careers in the academic or industrial world and each is appointed in his personal capacity by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Palmer: Is my hon. Friend aware that it has been suggested in some quarters that there is something mysterious and sinister about this body? Will he confirm that it is the kind of body that would be expected to advise the defence services of an advanced industrial country?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is nothing sinister or unworthy about the council. It is a highly valued organisation which gives proper advice to my right hon. Friend. There is nothing sinister about it. We welcome and

admire the distinguished men and women who serve on it.

Neutron Bomb

Dr. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates have been made of the likely timescale of the production and deployment of the neutron bomb to fulfil the strategic and tactical requirements of NATO.

Mr. Mulley: As the hon. Member is aware, President Carter has deferred production of this warhead.

Dr. Glyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this weapon is essential to NATO, in view of the massive build-up of tanks and conventional forces in the Warsaw Pact? Is he also aware that it is probably one of the best weapons in the defence of Europe to prevent all-out nuclear attack, and that, whether or not the bomb has been delivered, we should be making plans as to how many are required?

Mr. Mulley: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment. As I said earlier today, it was a very difficult decision for the President to make, balancing the military advantages, which I concede exist, and the arms control considerations. We feel that in the present circumstances President Carter's decision was right, and Her Majesty's Government fully support it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Did my right hon. Friend see the Evening News of a couple of weeks ago in which there was a very strange cartoon called "The Wizard of Id", in which the principal character was asked what benefit there was in our having a bomb that killed people but did not destroy property, and received the answer "It prevents looting"? Is not that a rather sick answer to the ultimate capitalist weapon, and will my right hon. Friend have nothing whatsoever to do with it?

Mr. Mulley: I do not recall that cartoon. In any event, I should not be influenced by it. It is grossly inaccurate to describe the enhanced radiation warhead, popularly and inaccurately called the neutron bomb, as a weapon that destroys people but does not damage property. Of course, property would also be damaged by such a bomb. I thought that by now at least the facts of the


matter had been established, although I understand that the arguments nevertheless still go on. Quite clearly, all the property in the immediate vicinity of such a bomb, if it were ever to be used, would be destroyed.

Mr. Mates: Why does the Secretary of State imagine that it should be only this one item in the entire nuclear armoury that causes such hysteria among many of his hon. Friends? Could it just be that it is the only item in that nuclear armoury with which Britain and the West are ahead of the world?

Mr. Mulley: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being rather unfair in his comment. As we on the Government Benches have frequently made clear, our concern is with the totality of nuclear weapons, and our desire is to have a reduction of that totality on both sides. It would be quite wrong to single out any one particular weapon for special treatment. What we want to do is to get a reduction right across the board.

TUC AND CBI

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I met representatives of the TUC on 28th February. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Mr. Thomas: Following the Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, I shall refrain from suggesting that a neutron bomb might be dropped here and that it would have the advantage of preserving the building and doing away with the rest of us, and will confine myself to asking my right hon. Friend whether he will discuss with the TUC the question of the poll carried out for the Sunday Times, which appeared last Sunday. It shows that, far from accepting the views of the Leader of the Opposition, the British people reject reducing taxes as a way of using North Sea oil revenues and prefer creating jobs and stimulating industry. Has my right hon. Friend studied that poll, and will he discuss it with the TUC?

The Prime Minister: My recollection is that, if the poll is to be believed, there was a substantial group of people who believed that regenerating industry came

first, together with finding alternative sources for our oil when it eventually runs out. I believe that they put tax cuts below that. That is in fact the policy that the Government put forward in the White Paper, and I am very happy if there is some confirmation of it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I ask the Prime Minister whether when he next meets the TUC there can be, following that discussion, an open and public debate, not confined to the economc committee of the TUC and the Prime Minister, about the future level of pay settlements—whether it is called phase 4 or anything else? Can the whole country be allowed into the discussion about the future level of pay increases and the consequent effects on inflation and unemployment?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware that anyone is stopping a public debate. Indeed. I have heard quite a lot of public debate about pay policy. The question is at what stage the Government should join in, and on that I reserve my rights.

Mr. Pavitt: In his contacts with the TUC, will my right hon. Friend direct his attention to Hansard of 14th April, dealing with trade union matters, which showed beyond a peradventure that however much those on the Opposition Front Bench might think they had an understanding with the trade unions they would never be able to deliver because of the voices behind them?

The Prime Minister: I always believe that there is a prospect of educating the Opposition, and I—[An HON. MEMBER: "My right hon. Friend is an incurable optimist."] My hon. Friends believe in the fallibility of man, whereas I believe in his redemption. I still believe that it is possible for the Opposition to work with the Trades Union Congress, provided the Opposition repudiate many of the policies they are following at present.

Mr. Tim Renton: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC, will he explain why the Treasury's latest forecast of current account surplus for this year, at £750 million, is only about half the forecast it made just a few months ago? In view of the alarming recent trade figures, does the Prime Minister think that even that reduced forecast will be met?

The Prime Minister: I would not attach as much importance to forecasts as the hon. Gentleman apparently does. I beg him to turn to a consideration of some of the things that are actually happening instead of forecasts that may never take place.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Hordern: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his public engagements for Tuesday 25th April.

The Prime Minister: In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today I shall be addressing the fortieth anniversary rally of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service.

Mr. Hordern: In between those important engagements, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to read the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's recent speech at the Mansion House, in which he condemned both Russian and Cuban intervention in Africa? In the light of reports today that both Russia and Cuba intend to step up this level of intervention, what are the Prime Minister's views on this matter, and why does he not refer these interventions to the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: I shall study any reports that have appeared on this subject and get what information is available. I think that the Government's position has been clearly stated and is well known on the position of the Soviet Union in the Horn of Africa, together with Cuban irregulars or regular soldiers. As for referring the matter to the Security Council, the appropriateness of that course must be considered week by week and month by month.

Mr. James Lamond: Will my right hon. Friend have time today to begin considering the speech that he intends to deliver to the special session of the United Nations on disarmament? If so, will he include in part of the speech congratulations to President Carter on his decision to postpone the development of the neutron bomb, which has led to a better atmosphere at the SALT II talks in Moscow recently? Will he ask President Carter, therefore, to extend that decision a

little from only deferring the development of the bomb to banning completely its development?

The Prime Minister: I have not been considering the speech today, but I have already started discussing the line that it should take. I had some discussion with Chancellor Schmidt about the general line that we should try to concert among ourselves on disarmament at the United Nations when he was here at the weekend. I think that it is known that we supported the decision of the President of the United States to postpone production of the neutron bomb. I observe that General Secretary Brezhnev has said that he intends not to produce it either, if the reports are to be believed. As for the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty talks, we should not assume that everything in the newspapers represents the real negotiating position between the two sides. I am hopeful that an agreement will be reached.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: When the right hon. Gentleman addresses the fortieth anniversary dinner of the WRVS, will he explain why his Government's policy forced it to withdraw its staff in Germany, where it had been manning clubs for Service men for many years, because the Government refused to continue a public funding?

The Prime Minister: That is not included in the text of my remarks, but what is included is that the Women's Royal Voluntary Service operates on a voluntary basis and that only its expenses are met. If the hon. Gentleman cares to give me some more details about what he has just said, I shall have the matter investigated. I have had no complaint from the WRVS about that which he has raised.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: In view of the urgent necessity to get some stability into the world's exchange rates, will my right hon. Friend say what progress he was able to make this weekend on this matter in his talks with Chancellor Schmidt?

The Prime Minister: It is somewhat difficult to go into these rather technical matters in the course of question and answer. What I think is clear—the general principle that emerged was clearly stated—is that any new arrangements


which are in the minds of anybody and which might be devised in Europe, or on a wider basis, should not be in opposition to the present role of the dollar but should be worked out in a way that will assist the dollar and not attack it.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Tuesday 25th April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern).

Mr. Flannery: In the midst of my right hon. Friend's many commitments, will he give some thought to the serious situation now developing in respect of the amending Bills to the Employment Protection Act? Will he take into account the highly organised opposition of the Tories against these Private Members' Bills which are dedicated to trying to prevent the sort of events that occurred outside Grunwick and which the Tories are on record as being in opposition to but clearly would like to create throughout the country, and give us time to get these important amending Bills through the House? Will the Government take them over so that the sort of events on the streets that the Tories rejoice in will not need to be engaged in outside any further Grunwicks?

The Prime Minister: I know that there is a great deal of sympathy for the Bills to which my hon. Friend refers. However, the Government must be reluctant to take over Private Members' Bills. We are talking about Private Members' time and it should be regulated in that way, otherwise we may as well abolish Private Members' time. There would be an awful howl if we did that

Mr. Adley: I revert to the answer that the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) about the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Does not the right hon. Gentleman have any unease that the Secretary of State's policy on Rhodesia appears to revolve around giving his whole support to a group of men who have admitted that what they want to see in Rhodesia is the creation of a one-party Marxist State?

The Prime Minister: I have read some remarks made by Mr. Mugabe about this topic and I hope that when there is one man, one vote and one woman, one vote in Rhodesia, or in the new Zimbabwe, those concerned will take those views into account and vote accordingly. I would not find myself able to support Mr. Mugabe on that basis, and I hope that the voters will not do so either.

Mr. Radice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the drop in unemployment levels announced today is especialy welcome in the Northern Region? Is he also aware that if unemployment levels are to keep coming down we must expand our own economy and ensure that the West German economy is expanded?

The Prime Minister: I was, as I am sure was the whole House, gratified to see that for the seventh-month running there has been another small fall in the number of unemployed and a rather larger increase in the number of vacancies, so that the seasonally corrected figure is now 5·7 per cent. I agree that an expansion of our economies generally will be of assistance in reducing the number of unemployed, but the Western countries are facing structural changes and structural challenges as a result of the transfer of technology to some of the newer countries.

Mr. Goodhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to find time today to see his Press Secretary and to ask him how it was that a letter on the subject of forthcoming changes at the head of the two intelligence services was wrongfully sent to the editor of the Morning Star? Will he ask him whether that was an error or whether it was done on purpose?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have seen the Press Secretary today. The letter that was sent informed newspaper editors of the reasons why the Government did not propose to announce the names of the two new appointments to particular posts. No newspaper has published the names, and I am very grateful for that. The Morning Star has not published the names. It has expressed the view that it does not wish to add to any possible physical danger to the holders of these posts, but it uses the letter to criticise the secrecy of the operations of the intelligence and security services. That, of course, is the


right of the Morning Star in the free and democratic society in which it operates.

PRESTON

Mr. Thorne: asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Preston.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to visit Preston.

Mr. Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the two issues that concern the people of Preston are jobs and housing? May we expect an early input of public expenditure addressed to those two specific problems?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will no doubt recall that over £150 million was injected to help employment. Preston has specifically benefited from that and the Government's decision to help keep the port of Preston open by making a substantial grant. I am told that about 4,500 workers in Preston have benefited overall.
As regards housing, it is true that the allocations of funds to Preston and other towns in the area have been affected by the decision to build the Central Lancashire new town. Building in the new town is affecting building programmes in areas such as that which my hon. Friend represents.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that about 20 years ago one of his predecessors, Mr. Harold Macmillan, opened the first motorway around Preston? Does he realise that the motorway with which we are most concerned, the Calder Valley motorway, has had a history of muddle, delay and misery in the past four years as a result of the postponement by the Government? Will he give his personal attention to the speeding up of the completion of the vital link from Preston to North-East Lancashire?

The Prime Minister: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations. One of the Government's priorities in building motorways lies in the South-West, which has suffered in the past because of the concentration on the industrial Midlands and the North. I am


expecting to receive encomiums of praise from all the Conservative and Liberal Members in the South-West.

Mr. Heffer: When my right hon. Friend finally goes to Preston, will he call in on Merseyside on the way? Will he give the Merseyside dockers full support for turning round the ships at record speed, and for the fact that there has not been a dispute in the Liverpool docks for four and a half years? Will he contrast that with the fact that the Southampton docks have been closed, for whatever reason, for the past 14 days, and that not one national newspaper has thought fit to explain the dispute, although Merseyside is constantly attacked for any type of dispute that takes place in the area?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is the desire of the whole House that industrial relations in Liverpool and the industrial progress of Liverpool should be seen in perspective. I am sure that it is right for my hon. Friend to draw attention to the record of the Liverpool dockers, who are involved in an important part of our industrial complex. I shall be receiving a deputation from Merseyside on Thursday that will be led by my hon. Friend. I look forward to discussing these matters with him then.

ARMED FORCES (PAY)

3.31 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the pay of the Armed Services.
The Seventh Report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body is published today and copies are available in the Vote Office. The Government are most grateful to the Review Body for all its work in producing this report.
The Review Body has concluded that the pay of the Armed Forces has fallen seriously behind in the period since April 1975 and the report states that increases in pay of between 19 per cent. and 38 per cent.—averaging 32 per cent.—are now required to restore the full military salary. It recommends that the full military salary should be restored at the earliest possible date, but it recognises the Government's expectation that increases which


exceed the guidelines would need to be staged. It has recommended that this staging should be completed not later than 1st April 1980.
The Government accept the Review Body's recommendations on the levels of the military salary. These will be fully implemented to the current levels for 1st April 1980 in two approximately equal stages after this year and, as the Review Body recommends, the Government give a firm commitment to that effect.
In considering the levels of the military salary, the Review Body has had regard to the element which recognises the balance of disadvantage of Service life by comparison with civil life, known in the Services as the "X" factor. It has also taken into account allowances and charges.
The Government have reached conclusions on these various elements in the light of the Review Body's conclusions and the following arrangements will apply for the year from 1st April 1978. There will be an increase of 10 per cent. in the military salary together with an increase in the "X" factor within the amount recommended by the Review Body, which will add 3 per cent. in total. The extent to which these percentages will be implemented will vary from rank to rank as differentials are restored. In addition, the rate of Northern Ireland pay will be doubled to £1 per day. There will be certain changes in allowances and a standstill in charges for accommodation pending a further examination by the Review Body. These together will add a further 1 per cent. to the net bill.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is arranging for a summary of the new pay scales to be placed in the Vote Office later this afternoon. I fear that they were not there at 3.30 p.m., but we shall get them there as soon as we can.
These arrangements now secure for the Armed Forces a firm assurance about their future conditions of service and will meet, I believe, the view expressed by the Review Body that their particular problems should be recognised.
The men and women who serve in the forces have many diverse and difficult roles, and they have undertaken a number of additional tasks, some of them very dangerous as in Northern Ireland. The

country is grateful to them, and I should like to pay tribute once again to the professionalism and dedication with which they carry out their many responsibilities.

Mrs. Thatcher: I should like to put three points to the Prime Minister. The first is a general one. Is he aware that his statement shows that the Government have failed lamentably to provide the levels of pay that the Services need and deserve? Our people are deeply disturbed that the forces have been let down in matters of pay and this statement means that they will continue to be let down for some time to come.
Secondly, social benefits. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that, as a result of his statement today, members of the Forces will no longer need to apply for rent and rate rebates and other social benefits?
Thirdly, comparability. As average earnings for the nation as a whole are rising by about 14 per cent. a year and as forces' pay has fallen behind that of their civilian equivalents by some 32 per cent., is the Prime Minister aware that this award means that for another year the Services are going to stay as far behind as they are now? Why have the Government done nothing this year to reduce the gap which has led to so many resignations and sapped morale in the Forces? Is he aware that we welcome the promise to restore comparability in two years, but note that promises so far in the future cost this Government nothing? We shall restore comparability, and restore it more quickly.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady has expressed her view, and she is entitled to it, but I notice that she said nothing about the impact and reaction of these matters upon the community as a whole. I believe that the great success that the Government have had has been in enjoining upon everyone the need to accept certain restrictions in order that we may go forward together—for example, as the firemen have done. I shall be interested to know whether what the right hon. Lady said about the Armed Forces applies also to the firemen in their forward commitment and elsewhere. If so, I promise her that, if she ever were in a position to do this, she would find herself either having to go back on her pledge or making a lot more trouble for herself.


But it would not be the first time that a Conservative Government had gone back on their pledges. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) is too young to remember.
As regards rent and rate rebates, I realise that the right hon. Lady has not yet had the opportunity of reading the reports which will be in the Vote Office, but she will find there a statement to the effect that the Review Body hopes that nobody will believe that applications for rent and rate rebates are in any way wrong, improper or a confession of poverty. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady had better wait and read the report. She could have had one with pleasure if she had wanted one. If that is a source of complaint, I ask her to make it formal. I believe that the right hon. Lady would say that I have never failed in my courtesy in sending her statements if ever she needed anything, and I should have been glad to supply her with one.
I am not making any particular point, except that the Review Body says that the system of rent rebates should continue, that it is in the interests of the forces that it should continue and that it should not be regarded as wrong or be used in some way as evidence of poverty if rebates are made in this way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I suggest that, instead of shouting their heads off, Opposition Members should read the report and then they can question us again on the matter.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that many members of the Armed Services will accept this recommendation by the Government, understanding the economic situation and the need to maintain some kind of incomes policy? Does he agree that it would be disastrous for the Armed Services if this issue were to be exploited by the Opposition at a time when the Government's counter-inflation policy is working and the Armed Services and other groups realise that their responsibility towards that aim is recognised by the Government in the report?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that the Opposition will be able to exploit this issue, because the country has too much common sense and will recognise the difficult series of decisions involved

in reaching a conclusion of this sort. The majority of people in this country will believe that we have taken a sensible and fair decision, coupled with a firm pledge to bring the Armed Forces up to equivalent and comparable levels in the next two years.
These increases will mean that for a private I the increase in actual pay, as distinct from other allowances, is £6 to £8 a week. For a corporal it is £8 to £10 a week, and for a sergeant £9 to £11. These should not be sneezed at. They are quite substantial sums, especially when added to by some of the allowances and the increases in charges that will now be held back.

Mx. Powell: When the new rates are applied, as I assume they will be, to the Ulster Defence Regiment, will the Prime Minister ensure that special attention is given to the differential between that regiment and the rest of the Army? This differential has been widening in real terms recently and will be widened further as a result of his announcement.

The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether the last part of the right hon. Member's question is right, but I shall take it from him at the moment and I shall ask the Secretary of State for Defence to look into this matter.

Mr. English: Is there any particular reason for the Prime Minister announcing this pay increase, as distinct from the Minister of Defence? Will he say whether this complete breach of pay policy signifies, as many Members on this side of this House would welcome, the scrapping of the incomes policy?

The Prime Minister: There is no particular reason for my announcing this increase—only the precedent that Prime Ministers always do. As regards the position on pay policy, we have tried to give a square deal to the Armed Forces that is consonant with the recovery in which this country is engaged at present. I am not discussing in general terms the future of pay policy. There are differences of view about that. However, there can be no difference of view about the fact that, as a result of the restraint of the last two years, inflation is down to single figures and still coming down. The country recognises that even if my hon. Friend does not.

Mr. Hooson: Is the Prime Minister aware that I welcome the announcement, and that even though the increase is well above the 10 per cent. the country will accept it because of the particular circumstances of the Armed Forces? Will the Prime Minister agree that the finding of the Review Body now—that the Armed Forces had fallen way behind—is the same as the finding that the Review Body made in 1974—that the Armed Forces had fallen behind under the Conservatives? Does this not show that the Armed Forces suffer particularly from intermittent pay policies and that therefore this indicates the need for a permanent pay policy in this country?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has correctly called attention to the fact that in 1975 the Armed Forces Review Body specifically commented that the Armed Forces had fallen seriously short as a result of pay policy in the years when the Opposition were in office. I was not going to bring that up, but it it quite clear and I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for mentioning it. However, we should not have a competition between the two sides on who can do worse for the Armed Forces. The question is whether we can give them a square deal. The undertaking I have given will ensure that they are brought up to comparable status within two years and this will be generally accepted and welcomed. If there are better ways of determining the pay of public servants, I believe that we should certainly try to find them. I have noted with interest what Mr. Basnett and others have said about this matter. I have seen this over so many years. I do not think that the House would want any group of public servants, whether they be in the Armed Forces or elsewhere, to suffer on these accounts.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Prime Minister accept that this is anything but a square deal for the Armed Forces? If they have fallen behind by 32 per cent. they should be paid 32 per cent. now. What will happen to the Government's promise to bring their pay up to comparable levels in two years' time? Will he agree that it is time Governments accepted that the Armed Forces and, indeed, the police as well, should be outside the restraints of incomes policy, whether it is

voluntary or in accordance with guidelines? Will he not agree that the Armed Forces should be paid accordingly?

The Prime Minister: I understand the right hon. Member's view, but no section of the community can be outside the general welfare of the community. We are all one nation here and everyone has his or her part to play in it. In a very difficult situation the Government have gone as far as they can in meeting the legitimate demands and requests of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that his statement seems to me to rest on three fundamental principles—firmness, fairness and flexibility? Is he aware that these are far better bases for conducting industrial relations than the party political gamesmanship indulged in by the Leader of the Opposition on pay policy?

The Prime Minister: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It is to be expected that the Opposition will make the most of what they can, but people will judge whether what is being said represents the real interests of the country. I am content to leave it to the country. I have stated the Government's position and I believe that it will be accepted by the great majority of people.

Sir David Renton: In view of the expected serious shortage of RAF pilots and the fact that it takes a long time and lots of money to train a pilot, will the Prime Minister say whether he considers that the very limited statement on the increased pay which he has announced will rectify that serious situation?

The Prime Minister: I think that it will. The increases that are proposed, for example, for the equivalent of captains and majors run into several hundreds of pounds, although they are of the order of 11 per cent., 12 per cent., and 13 per cent. This, coupled with the firm assurance about the next two years, will have a marked effect on the Armed Forces. It is not as easy as some hon. Members think to get comparable salaries outside for every grade.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister tell us the total costs of the Government's proposals and how they will be included in the current Defence Estimates? Can he say, in view of the


remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, how her proposal squares with the Conservatives' clear determination to propose very substantial tax decreases in the course of the Finance Bill?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to say that it is not my responsibility to answer for the dilemma of the Leader of the Opposition. We have looked into the question of cash limits, and I understand that these can be accommodated within the total figures that have been set out in the Estimates. Perhaps my hon. Friend would question the Secretary of State for Defence more closely.

Mr. Alan Clark: Will the Prime Minister agree, and was this not confirmed to him by my constituent Mrs. Fergusson of the Service Wives Committee, whom he met in Plymouth last Friday, that what causes most distress and resentment among Service families is the way in which their take-home pay is constantly eroded by deductions for housing, for subsistence and in some cases even for transporting their children to school? Does he not feel that this should be looked at very closely over the next two years?

The Prime Minister: I accept that this was put to me as being one of the factors that this group of ladies discussed with me. I took account of what they said. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that I said there would be certain changes in allowances which I believed could be accommodated—I have not gone into details and I am not sure that they cover the particular ones that were raised with me—but certainly these can be looked at over the next two years.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Opposition are following their usual line on defence questions and are saying that they would spend more than the Government but without specifying how much? Does he also recollect that it is the declared Conservative policy that such extra expenditure should be met not out of taxation but by reduction of the social services? This means that although hon. Members opposite make a great deal of fuss about defence, they are not prepared to put their hands in their own pockets for it.

The Prime Minister: Yes. No doubt next week we shall be met with demands for reduced taxation, as I have read in the newspapers. That is bound to increase the borrowing requirement, to which the Opposition are also opposed. One day perhaps they may begin to clear up their own difficulties.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the Prime Minister aware that last year there were proposals to cut the take-home pay of Service men in Germany by 14 per cent. through a review of the local overseas allowance? This was postponed for 12 months. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that Service men in Germany will not have this meagre increase clawed back later in the year by a change in the local overseas allowance?

The Prime Minister: I understand that local overseas allowance is not covered by this statement and is still under consideration.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continued success of the fight against inflation is just as important to every Service man and his family as it is to every industrial worker and his family? Whilst it is right and proper that the Services should have their working conditions examined from time to time in the House of Commons, it is much more important that my right hon. Friend should seek the views of the TUC and the CBI in all considerations of any form of wage increase and not take too much notice of the criticisms of Conservative Members, who have now reached a level at which they even use the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom for political purposes.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My correspondence and my meetings show that those members of the Armed Forces who correspond with me or address me are as concerned with overcoming inflation as anyone else. They have found it extremely difficult to continue with their livelihoods during the last two years. I think that what is taking place now, together with a firm pledge for the future, will help them to meet this, and I believe that this is generally recognised.

Mr. Wall: In view of the widespread erosion of the morale of the Forces and the police and their importance to the security of the State, will the Prime


Minister say whether he considers them to be a special case?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We have deliberately avoided using the term "special case". We take each case on its merits, and that is what we have done on this occasion.

Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of my right hon. Friend's answer to the Liberal spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), a few minutes ago, will he initiate discussions with Mr. David Basnett and other TUC leaders designed to take the pay of non-industrial public servants out of the political and wage-bargaining arena, perhaps by indexing them to manufacturing wages?

The Prime Minister: I have had many years' experience of negotiating wage increases, and I am not sure that that would be an appropriate thing to do. But I should be very happy indeed to discuss with Mr. Basnett any of his views to try to get a basis which will be acceptable, which will not add to inflation and on which other people cannot build.
This is a very complex problem. It is one to which the House, I hope—perhaps in less of a partisan spirit than seems to exist this afternoon—will devote its attention, because there is no doubt that on occasions the public services use the private services to build on, and the converse can happen, too, and set off another wage explosion. I am determined that that shall not happen, no matter what is said.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that before we come to the Wales Bill, which is under a timetable motion, there is a Ten-Minute Bill and a point of order, so I propose to bring these questions to an end at 4 o'clock.

Mr. Viggers: Does the Prime Minister accept that local overseas allowance is not, in fact, part of pay at all but an allowance for living abroad? When can we expect a further statement on this matter, bearing in mind, for example, that local overseas allowance in Gibraltar has been frozen for two years for the Services whereas those personnel in the Foreign Service have had rises ranging from 54 per cent. to 86 per cent. and,

indeed, receive London allowance as well for living in Gibraltar?

The Prime Minister: I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I am sure that he will put it in due course to the Secretary of State for Defence, who has also heard what he said.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Prime Minister accept that most fair-minded people will see this as a fair package for the Armed Forces? However, did he hear the leader of the Scottish National Party say that there should be a 32 per cent. award straight away? What should we in Scotland say to firemen, police and others about such a proposal? Might not this be best left to the proposed Defence Committee of the Scottish Assembly?

The Prime Minister: I thought that it was a way of trying to get votes for an independent Scotland so that the Armed Forces of Scotland would be so well paid. The right hon. Gentleman the leader of the SNP nods his agreement to this. But I have a feeling that the people of Scotland are not as easily taken in as all that.

Mr. Emery: Will the Prime Minister clarify his statement on comparability? If, using the averages, the 13 per cent. paid this year will reduce the discrepancy from 32 per cent. to 19 per cent., and if in the next two years the comparability factor means that there will be another, say, 12 per cent. per annum, which is 24 per cent. by April 1980, plus 19 per cent., is the Prime Minister giving an absolute undertaking for all further Governments that 20 per cent. increases, if they are averaged over the two years, will be given to the forces in the next two years?

The Prime Minister: I shall not go into the figures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—because no one knows what the figures will be—except the howling mob opposite. I am taking the hon. Gentleman seriously. I do not take some of his hon. Friends so seriously. They seem to be more intent on making party points about it.
However, taking the hon. Gentleman's question, I made it clear, and I should like to repeat it, that the Government give a firm commitment to the effect that the increases will not only overtake the arrears that now exist—if that is the proper term for them—but will take


account of increases that are gained during the next two years. That is another reason for us keeping increases to the minimum that we can, because these will be very substantial improvements.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been better to concentrate help where it is needed most, amongst the ordinary worker in uniform rather than the chiefs of staff, who have already had a £750 hand-out under the Budget? Does he also agree that the paternalistic approach of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body needs to be replaced by effective trade union organisation and collective bargaining machinery to deal with the many problems faced by members of the Armed Forces?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will no doubt be interested to learn that the chiefs of staff are excluded from this report. As regards a trade union, having witnessed the events of the last few weeks, I have a feeling that the Armed Forces do better without a trade union than they would do with one.

Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that on the Government side of the House we all believe in decent pay for the Armed Forces, both now and in the future, and we hope that in the future it can be substantially improved? Does he agree, however, that the total defence expenditure is quite a burden on the British economy and that we must look forward to the possibility of advancing detente policies in order to reduce our burden and to make it possible to pay these men much better than they are going to be paid? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it does not help the process of detente for third-rate lectures in Austria by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition on what is supposed to be Marxism—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to extend the time for these questions by two minutes. I did not hold a fair balance in the questions. But if questions are very long, it is easy to cut out the other side.

The Prime Minister: I might ask why I should suffer, Mr. Speaker.
Defence is, of course, a burden on the budgets of every country, including the developing countries, whose increase in the arms burden is so severe. Therefore, it is right that we should try to get a measure of disarmament as soon as we can. But I am bound to say that until we can, I do not think it would be the proper balance to increase the pay of the Armed Forces to the point at which they would go into battle knowing that all their rent was paid but without having the equip-merit to fight.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Regardless of whether anyone thinks that this award is fair and regardless of incomes policy, why does the Prime Minister think that this award will stop the loss of manpower from the Armed Services? In particular, why will it stop the loss of expensively trained pilots, already referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), when they can receive far greater awards in civil airlines in different parts of the world?

The Prime Minister: I think that some of these detailed questions ought to be put down to the Secretary of State for Defence, because I do not wish to get some of these very complicated matters incorrect—though I am told that in the case of some of the pilots to whom the hon. Gentleman refers there is a substantial increase. But I would sooner he got the exact details from my right hon. Friend by putting Questions to him.
I think that when people come to look at this and see the increases that are involved, which are substantial, and they recognise that there are attractions and advantages in Service life—none of which has been mentioned during the last few weeks coupled with the firm assurance that has been given, they will recognise that this makes a reasonable career for a young man. With that I am satisfied.

Mr. Pattie: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the current exodus of Service personnel relates to the previous inadequate pay awards and that this award will cause the present stream to become a flood? Does he not realise that the country can appreciate that if miners and power workers were leaving their industries at the rate at which Service men are leaving the Services, a deal of 30


per cent., and the rest, would be cobbled together?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. I have the figures of redundancy, premature voluntary release and medical discharge, and they do not bear out some of the wilder accounts we have been hearing over the last few weeks. I hope that some hon. Members will put down some Questions to ask for the actual figures. They are bound to be very revealing.

Mr. Skinner: On the subject of rent rebates, does my right hon. Friend recall that when the Housing Finance Act, which was euphemistically called the "fair rent Act", was introduced in 1972, the Tories said that it could affect up to 40 per cent. of council tenants and therefore was not designed to fit the needs of those who were merely on the poverty line? Will he also appreciate that his little difficulty this afternoon has been caused mainly by the fact that he is operating against the backcloth of an incomes policy? Will he bear in mind the fact that while a few Liberals and a few trade union leaders may support a phase 4, there are millions of trade unionists who say that they want nothing more to do with an incomes policy and that it would be better if the Government got out of the middle of that ring?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware that I had discussed a phase 4. What I am discussing is a perennial problem, which will remain with us whether we have an incomes policy or not—that the Government are a large employer and must take a view about their public sector and the public services. The Government therefore cannot get out of the ring on these matters. They should take a view and negotiate. One day my hon. Friend will discover this, when he is doing the negotiation himself.
As for the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I repeat what I have said before—that it would be wrong to assume that what was done under the Act to which my hon. Friend referred has a direct relationship to the system of rent and rate rebates in the Armed Forces—if I understand correctly the report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. There, it is related to the size of family and other questions. If I have that report

aright, I hope that we shall get away from saying that, ipso facto, someone applying for this relief is poverty-stricken or is below the level which is appropriate. I understand that that is not the case, so we should not encourage that view.

Sir Ian Gilmour: The Prime Minister has this afternoon shown a remarkable ignorance of this whole subject. Perhaps that explains why he has not given the forces a square deal. Is he aware that what he said about keeping these increases within cash limits is totally wrong? Is he further aware that the Secretary of State for Defence confirmed the other day what everybody else knows—that a pay increase is outside the defence budget?

The Prime Minister: I of course take due note of the strictures of the right hon. Gentleman. I will observe them duly and I am humbly sorry if he thinks that I have not managed to satisfy him this afternoon. However, I have to satisfy not just the right hon. Gentleman but the whole community. That is the responsibility I have and that is what I am discharging today.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

John Vincent Tilley Esq., for Lambeth, Central.

QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULINGS)

Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order that I should like to raise relates to part of your statement on privilege on Friday. I gave you notice of it yesterday and you asked me to postpone it until today.
My first point concerns the right of the House to make points of order on statements by Mr. Speaker. In February 1978, the House passed new rules about privilege, one of which made it clear that there could be no points of order on your rulings. However, there are occasions when you make a statement which contains both a ruling and other matters on which points of order might be appropriate. I would hope that on those occasions when you make, as it were, a "hybrid" statement—our traditional right under Standing Orders to make


points of order should not be eroded by the rule of 6th February. I should like your ruling on that.
Second, I am concerned solely with the fifth paragraph of that ruling, in which you mentioned an order prohibiting the use of the colonel's name and reinterpreted the ruling from the exact words in which it was made by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page).
I should like to raise three points. First, what is the basis of the words:
In view of the order of the court prohiting the disclosure of the colonel's name"?
That was not the form of words used by the DPP, and great concern has been expressed about it.
Secondly, I hope that you will accept, Mr. Speaker, that your form of words in the statement—
to remove the matter from the jurisdiction of the courts and then claim that the courts have no further power".—[Official Report, 21st April 1978; Vol. 948, c. 866.]—
does not correspond to any stated or unstated objective either by the right hon. Member for Crosby, who moved the motion, or by me and my hon. Friends. As I understand it, the privileges of the courts are wholly for them, just as ours are wholly for us.
Thirdly, would you accept that sometimes situations of such national importance can arise that Parliament must have its say, irrespective of the position of the courts in the matter?
I would not wish you to rule immediately on this matter, Sir, but I would ask you to take these points into consideration in any further statements that you may make or in any contacts that you may have with the two Front Benches, since they expressed a desire yesterday that this matter should be fully thrashed out on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Further—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) gave me notice of a point of order. I do not know whether he gave notice as well to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). I want to deal with the point of order which has been raised. If the hon. Member has also had notice, that is another matter.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: On the same point, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, as my hon.

Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) did not ask you, to rule on the sentence you used in your statement on Friday? It is a part of the defence case that there was no court order prohibiting the disclosure—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman because he is beginning to refer to the criminal court case which I said we are not going to discuss.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking points of order any further on this: the hon. Gentleman must understand. I am saying to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West that of course I shall bear in mind the matters that he has raised.

Later—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I explain to the hon. Gentleman that I do not intend to enlarge on any statement I have made in connection with the earlier case. If the hon. Gentleman has another point of order, I am prepared to listen.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: May I make a submission on the third point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman obviously feels that his hon. Friend has not made himself clear and perhaps wants to help him out. I have undertaken to consider what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West said.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take into consideration another element? You will recall that in the debate of the report of the Committee of Privileges on 6th February this year the Lord President made a statement on privilege when he said,
There are two sides to the privilege coin. On one side it is essential, for the authority and rights of this House, and essential if the hon. Members are to perform their functions adequately, that there should be an absolute right for hon. Members to be able to speak freely in this House without any intervention from monarchs, newspaper proprietors or whoever it may be. People in this House must be allowed.…."—[Official Report, 6th February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 1194–5.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Without the slightest disrespect to the Lord President, I am not responsible for his speeches and I make no claim to be responsible for them. I am concerned with the interpretation of the rules of the House.

QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. David Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter concerning Prime Minister's Questions today. I deferred raising this matter since the Prime Minister was to make a statement on defence and I thought that it would be more convenient and courteous to you and the House to raise the matter now.
I should like to draw attention to the fact that there were 55 Questions down to the Prime Minister today. Every one of them referred to his timetable. We have had arguments before about how Prime Minister's Question Time should be conducted. Like other hon. Members. I have tried to put down Questions to the Prime Minister on broad policy, but they have all been transferred. May I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker? We have now reached the point at which Prime Minister's Questions, in terms of the Order Paper, have become a nonsense.
Do we accept as a House that the only Questions which the Prime Minister's Office is prepared to accept on his behalf relate to his timetable? I am sure that it is for the convenience of the House and of the Prime Minister that we revert to the practice of former times when one could table Questions on broad Government policy to the Prime Minister which were accepted and not transferred to departmental Ministers.
In view of the fact that we are now on the air and being judged by a wider audience, I suggest that this matter should be examined. I have no other means of raising the matter with you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. John Mendelson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman raising the same point of order?

Mr. Mendelson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to urge you to find some means of making a further reference to the Procedure Committee, or of consulting the two sides of the House. When the Procedure Committee discussed this matter, we had the fullest co-operation of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and a considerable amount of time was spent in reaching agreement. The Prime Minister assured us, and that assurance was conveyed to the House, that in about 85 to 90 per cent. of all cases he would deal with substantive Questions raised with him. It is a matter of great regret that I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price)—namely, to the effect that we have not acted on that recommendation and have made it impossible for the Prime Minister to implement it.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to both hon. Gentlemen for the way in which they have raised this matter. It is, of course, for the Prime Minister to decide which Questions he accepts, and no doubt he will learn of what has been said this afternoon.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House I shall put together the Questions on the four motions relating to Statutory Instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Hungary) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Ghana) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Singapore) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Medicines (Radioactive Substances) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]

LIQUOR PRIZES

4.15 p.m.

Mr. John Hannam: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the clarification of the law relating to the use of intoxicating liquor as a prize.
I beg leave of the House to present a short Bill to clarify a narrow part of our licensing laws. Before you, Mr. Speaker, or any other hon. Members react anxiously at the thought of tampering with the drink laws, let me explain that I am not seeking to implement any recommendations of the 1972 Erroll Report, although I personally feel strongly that a reform of our restrictive and complicated licensing laws is very much overdue.
What I seek to do today is to effect a small exemption clause in the Licensing Act 1964 so as to allow a common and widespread practice to be brought within the law.
At present, as the law stands, anybody offering liquor as a prize in a draw or tombola unless he has secured a justices' licence is breaking the law. Most hon. Members, or their wives, attend functions each week at which they perform the drawing of winning tickets. Sometimes we find ourselves winning a prize and often feel constrained to put it back to be drawn again.
A large number of these draws or raffles are in aid of worthy charitable causes. Anybody connected with such organisations, as most hon. Members are, will know of the vast amounts of money raised in this way for national and local voluntary campaigns. I must point out that so far as I am aware there has been little or no interference with these activities by the police authorities, certainly in regard to actual prosecutions.
However, in December of last year I was approached by a constituency charity organiser, Mr. Ken Mullins, who is also a local JP, who complained that his fund-raising organisation "Teddy Charities"—nothing to do, incidentally, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—an organisation which raises a great deal of money for various disablement organisations in the area, had to curtail its use of liquor as prizes for bottle stalls at charity fetes and fairs. This followed advice which he had

received from the Devon and Cornwall police authority that such a use of liquor prizes was illegal in that it constituted a "sale" of intoxicating liquor in unlicensed premises.
The action which started up the whole inquiry was the reported closing of a bottle stall at a local fete at Heles School, Exeter. The perhaps over-enthusiastic police constable training at the Police Training College was perfectly within his rights in pointing out that the law as it stood had to be effected in this way. Although prosecutions have not been made, advice has been issued by the police authorities stating the facts as they stand.
Not all that long ago there was a hoo-hah about drink provided at all those wine-and-cheese functions and other social occasions. It was clearly then decided that a justices' licence—an "occasional licence", as it is called—is required when these functions take place on unlicensed premises.
My case was not quite as clear cut as that. Nevertheless, I could see that although the police authorities would not wish to interfere with worthwhile charity activities, if asked to intervene they would have to state the law as they saw it. I thought that the best course of action was to write to the Home Office to obtain clarification. As is so often the case when. Members of Parliament write to that Department, the answer was very disappointing. The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), who is the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, took two months to inform me:
The question whether a person who offers intoxicating liquor as a prize in a draw or game of chance, could be regarded as selling the liquor without a justices' licence and thereby guilty of an offence is a question of law which can ultimately only be decided by the courts. It is not one on which the Home Secretary can express an authoritative opinion.
The hon. Lady went on to state in her letter that there was no prospect at present of early Government legislation on this subject.
However, on 28th January, a week previous to the Home Office letter, an article appeared in the law Journal, Justice of the Peace, dealing specifically with the question of liquor prizes. Because of increased interest in this matter, the editors


had asked Mr. J. N. Martin, editor of "Paterson's Licensing Acts", to examine, as they put it
the growing phenomenon, the use of alcoholic liquor as a prize or stimulus to sales".
I shall not attempt to go into the details of that article, except to say that it confirms that the exchange of a ticket or payment constitutes a sale or transaction, comes within the Licensing Act 1964, Sections 160 and 196, and therefore requires a justices' licence for that sale.
I then went to the deputy chief constable of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary and I received a letter which clearly stated the following:
I have to inform you that in my view if intoxicating liquor is offered as a prize in a draw, it is unlawful in as much as it constitutes a sale".
He went on to reiterate that the police did not go looking for this type of offence, but finished by stating:
However, when advice has been sought, it is up to us to state the law as it appears to us
Therefore, having with my layman's eye carefully examined the legal aspects of this widespread practice, I am convinced that the Home Secretary's advice that the courts should clarify this matter is wrong. The legal precedents indicate to me that the courts would support the police view.
My Bill—which I hope the Government will support and the House will speed

on its way—seeks very simply to remove any doubt about the nature of such prizes. The one-clause Bill will provide that,
For the avoidance of doubt, the use of intoxicating liquor as a prize in any form of competition, gaming, lottery or other amusement shall not be regarded as a sale, exposure for sale, or a transaction in the nature of a sale of the Licensing Act 1964".
I know that hon. Members would not wish to have to decline the purchase of draw and raffle tickets at the various functions they attend, and certainly they would not wish to curtail the essential fund-raising activities of the many thousands of charities which help the handicapped and elderly. I therefore ask the House to support the introduction of this short Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hannam, Mr. Graham Page, Mr. Peter Mills, Mr. Tim Sainsbury, Mr. John Moore, Mr. Alan Clark and Mr. Jerry Wiggin.

LIQUOR PRIZES

Mr. John Hannam accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the clarification of the law relating to the use of intoxicating liquor as a prize; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5th May and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

Orders of the Day — WALES BILL

[9th ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 19th April.]

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

New Clause No. 1

PERIOD BETWEEN GENERAL ELECTION AND REFERENDUM

If a proclamation summoning a new Parliament is made before a referendum is held in pursuance of section 83 above, the referendum shall not be held earlier than three months after the date of the poll at the election of members for the new Parliament; and if an earlier date has been appointed by Order in Council under paragraph 1 of Schedule 12 to this Act, the Order shall not take effect, but without prejudice to the making of a new Order under that paragraph.".—[Mr. John Smith.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

4.21 p.m.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Committee may recollect that when we were dealing with the Scotland Bill an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was carried, against the Government's advice, providing for a gap of three months between a General Election and the referendum if a General Election preceded the referendum.
The Government accept that it is desirable that a similar provision should appear in the Wales Bill. The wording of the new clause is, I think, an improvement on the wording which my hon. Friend had inserted in the Scotland Bill, and perhaps I should add at this point that we have tabled a similar amendment to the Scotland Bill in another place so that both Bills will be the same.
This matter was grouped for debate, although not reached, on the last occasion. In the circumstances, perhaps the Committee will accept my assurance that what the new clause does is to put into the Wales Bill a provision similar to that which was carried into the Scotland Bill, though putting it in correct legal language.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It would be churlish and curmudgeonly of me were I not to acknowledge what the Government have done, in more eloquent language than I prepared for the Scotland Bill.

Mr. Francis Pym: I thank the Government for tabling the new clause and for the way in which the Minister moved it. I am sure that he was wise to table it and fulfil the wish of the Committee that in the arrangements made for the referendum what applies to Scotland should apply also to Wales. The only instance in respect of which they did not try to do that was the 40 per cent. requirement, and on that they got an even dustier answer than the one they had earlier. They were, therefore, wise to do what they have. At any rate, I am grateful for it.
However, as we are debating this aspect of the Bill, that is to say, the timing of the referendum and the wise separation of the campaign and vote on the referendum from any General Election, may I ask the Minister of State again about the running of the referendums in Scotland and in Wales on the same day?
On the assumption that the Wales Bill becomes law in the present Session—and the Scotland Bill, too, for that matter, though that also is speculative—do the Government intend to hold the referendums in Scotland and in Wales on the same day?
It has long seemed to us that that would be highly desirable. At an earlier stage, the Government indicated that such was their intention. To be fair to the Minister, they did not give an absolute commitment, but there was a clear indication that that was their intention. In recent months, I have found a clear desire in the House that these referendums, if they are to be held, should be held on the same day, for all sorts of reasons. This is, I suggest, a good moment for the Government to tell us whether, in that event, now that they have moved the new clause in terms similar to the provision now in the Scotland Bill, they intend that both should be held on the same day.

Sir Raymond Gower: I also thank the Minister for tabling the new clause. Not only is it right that the procedure here should be related to what has


been decided for the Scotland Bill; it is of considerable importance on its own merits, since it is not desirable that one event should, as it were, be overshadowed by the other.
I regard three months as a minimum period. For my part, I should prefer the period to be a trifle longer, but certainly we should have this minimum period between the holding of a General Election and the holding of a referendum.
I strongly endorse what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). It is of enormous importance that the referendums should be separate but be held on the same day so that the result of one should not be affected by the result of the other. In my submission, it would be bad if the result in Scotland—or, vice versa, in Wales—were to influence the result in the other country. The facts and conditions might be greatly different, yet if there were a decisive result one way or the other in either Scotland or Wales and the other referendum were held a considerable time later, there would obviously be an effect, and this would be most undesirable.
I urge, therefore, that the two events be held on the same day.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I follow the point raised by the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) that there would be confusion if the referendum were held on the same day as a General Election. We accept entirely that there would be considerable confusion. We do not agree that a period of three months is necessary, but I consider that it should be at least a month.
However, I wish to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Barry as he went on from that argument. If there were confusion if we had the two campaigns at the same time—the General Election campaign and the campaign on a referendum for the Welsh Assembly—by the same argument there could be confusion if we had the referendum for Scotland and for Wales on the same day.
Conservative Members and others have strongly pressed, especially about 12 months ago, when they were trying to separate the Welsh element from the Scottish element and put them into two separate Bills, that the circumstances are

entirely different. The arguments in relation to establishing the Assembly are different. The arguments in relation to the powers of the Assembly are different, as are the arguments about the functions which the Assembly will undertake. This is bound to have an effect on a referendum if it is held on the same day as the referendum for Scotland.

Sir Raymond Gower: I am not committed to exactly the same day. The principle which I was applying is that the effect of one referendum result should not influence the other. I do not mind if they are held on successive days or within a few days of one another, so long as the result in one case is not made known before the other referendum is held.

Mr. Wigley: Obviously, if there is any length of time between the referendums for Scotland and for Wales, the result of one will be known before the result of the other. But to the extent that the result in Scotland can influence, as the hon. Member for Barry believes, the way people may vote in Wales—or the other way round—there is an even stronger argument that the campaigns in relation to the two referendums will influence each other.
If the hon. Gentleman is trying to ensure that there is fair play in the referendum, what he should safeguard against is the probability that people will be influenced in Wales by arguments which are not pertinent to Wales—arguments in relation to the West Lothian question, for example, arguments to do with the legislative function of the Scottish Assembly, which does not exist for the Welsh Assembly, and so on. Such arguments may well be paraded about Wales, and, conversely, there may be arguments about the Welsh language or the like which have no relevance to Scotland.
For better or for worse, the media that will be affecting the referendum in Wales will largely be London-based media. The reality is that there are two daily newspapers produced more or less exclusively for Wales, the Western Mail and the Liverpool Daily Post, and there are three or four evening newspapers. The vast bulk of daily newspaper readership reads newspapers produced in London or in Manchester for circulation in Britain as a whole, or at least in England and Wales.
The issues that will be taken up in these newspapers in the period leading up to the referendum will, without a shadow of doubt, be issues relating primarily to Scotland. To the extent that these two Bills were necessary because of the fundamental difference between the circumstances of Wales and of Scotland, as was pointed out to us time and again last year, the case stands all the more strong that the referendums themselves should be held on two separate occasions, with the issues argued out fully and thoroughly by the media in Wales, and in the media which come from outside Wales into Wales, but in the Welsh context.
Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. If the circumstances justify separate Bills, they justify holding the referendums on separate days. We are concerned not only with newspapers, but with the number of people who listen to the general news programmes such as "News at Ten" on ITN and the BBC News, which is broadcast throughout the United Kingdom. They will be a major influencing factor on how people vote, yet they will inevitably be concentrating on the Scottish aspect of the question.
4.30 p.m.
I am confident that the people of Wales, whether they vote "Yes" or "No", can make up their minds on their own case if they have an opportunity to do so. There is much more danger from holding the referendums on the same day than there is of one referendum influencing the other if they are held on separate days.
Therefore, I ask the Government Front Bench to respond to the Conservative Front Bench and to give an assurance that the referendums will not be held on the same day. It is important that the referendums are not held on the same day, so that there can be two distinct campaigns, geared to the different circumstances applying in Wales and in Scotland, and responsive to such circumstances, and that the media can put the facts as they see them in relation to Scotland and in relation to Wales, distinctly and clearly, so that people can make up their minds.
There is a further matter relating to any party political broadcasting or broad-
casting on behalf of umbrella organisations or groupings that may come together formally or informally for a "Yes" or "No" vote in the referendums. We are likely to see groupings. We have already seen them developing informally in Scotland and, to some extent, in Wales. If groupings develop, a balance has to be achieved in party political broadcasting or in the umbrella broadcasting for the referendum—if these are broadcast over the network channels, as may be necessary if they are to be heard in many parts of Wales that receive programmes from stations in England—on the question how the issues and the people who appear on those programmes are to be sorted out if the referendums are to be held on the same day.
The arguments in favour of having the referendums on different days are overwhelming. There is a need to ensure that the referendums are not held on the same day as are elections to the European Assembly. That could happen if the referendums are delayed over the autumn because of the General Election and the three months' rule that the Government are pressing. If this happened there would be confusion, which could effect the turnout—which is significant now that the 40 per cent. threshold may be implemented in the Wales Bill.
Some people may want to abstain from voting at the European Assembly election, finding the election a big bore, but may want to turn out for the referendum, to vote "Yes" or "No" or vice versa. Perhaps the Government can meet me on this point.
The Minister has given an assurance that the referendums will not be held on the same day as a General Election. I hope that he can also give an assurance that they will not be held on the same day as the European elections.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I congratulate the Government on introducing the new clause. We had a discussion on the Scotland Bill when my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) moved a similar amendment and the Government said that they would consider it. At that time, common sense showed that it was necessary that there should be a period between a General Election and a referendum.
The Labour Party will be campaigning for the return of a Labour Government in a General Election, out there are strong differences among my hon. Friends about the advice that we should give to the people of Wales on how they should vote in the referendum. Therefore, we should not get the issues in this Bill mixed up with the question of the future government of Britain.
I cannot understand the support that is now coming from the nationalists for the new clause. I thought that they were making mischief on the last day on which the Bill was debated in Committee. They were trying to write into the Bill a specific date on which the referendum should be held.
This clause could not be implemented if a specific date were put into the Bill for the holding of a referendum. It was a nonsense then. I am glad that over the weekend they have considered their position and have put the nonsense aside. Even so, they have caused damage because they have succeeded in deleting the whole clause dealing with the commencement of the Bill. It seems strange that those who accuse some hon. Members in the Labour Party of being critical of certain aspects of the Bill and wanting a certain conclusion to be reached should have caused the greatest damage to the measure that has been done in the whole discussion of the Bill.

Mr. Wigley: We voted against Clause 82 because it proposed the triggering of a referendum that we believe to be unfair. I believe that the 40 per cent. clause is unfair. We would accept a straight referendum and the verdict on it, but not one which needed a 40 per cent. majority "Yes" vote.
As to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) about the timing, our amendments last week did not stipulate a precise date. That was a Liberal Party amendment. Our amendment would have provided a period in which it could happen if, after a General Election, a Conservative Government came to power. The hon. Gentleman was getting confused between the Liberal amendment which proposed a certain date and ours which did not.
We are not supporting this clause. Three months is too long a gap and pushes

the thing too far ahead, particularly if the Conservative Party comes to power. But we are not against the principle of separating a General Election from a referendum.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman talks about confusion. His party was in a very confused position in Committee last Thursday. Voting on the amendment to the 40 per cent. clause did not occur until after they had defeated the clause. Plaid Cymru could not have known the minds of those in the Committee. It deliberately set about defeating Clause 82, which was concerned with the commencement of the Act, before the Committee got round to discussing that amendment.
The hon. Gentleman talks about fairness. He has thrown the accusation against the Government of being unfair. All the Government did was to allow the Committee to reach a decision. What is unfair about allowing the Committee to reach a decision on whether there should be a requirement for a 40 per cent. "Yes" vote? The nationalists voted on the Scotland Bill for 33⅓ per cent. as a minimum requirement. That is recorded in Hansard. Therefore, the difference between us is 6⅔ per cent. Plaid Cymru should withdraw its accusations made over the weekend against the Government.
It would be utterly illogical for the Committee to reach a decision on the Wales Bill that was completely different from the decision on the Scotland Bill. I believe that the vote on the 40 per cent. amendment was logical. There is a need for a minimum requirement in the referendum, and the Committee has reached a decision about that. It is guidance to the people of Wales and Scotland that if there is a derisory vote in the referendums that must not be taken to be the will of the people. We have provided that there should be a minimum percentage and it is on that basis that we shall give due regard to the decision reached in the referendums.
It is logical for the referendums to be held at a different time from a General Election. The question is whether the referendum in Wales should be held at the same time as the referendum in Scotland. There are arguments for and against this proposition. There is a good argument for holding the referendum in


Wales first because that would have a very good influence on the Scottish result and I am sure that the unity of the United Kingdom would be furthered if we had the referendum in Wales first and conducted the referendum in Scotland about a week later.
However, I appreciate the arguments against that course. There were orginally arguments about which should proceed first, the Bill for Scotland or the Bill for Wales, we ended up with the Scotland and Wales Bill, which was the wrong way to proceed.
Obviously a referendum on the proposals for Wales will be different from a referendum on the proposals for Scotland. If the Scottish referendum is held first, the nationalists in Wales will say that the House of Commons is putting Scotland before Wales. They probably have the pamphlets ready now. Equally, if the Welsh referendum were held first, one can imagine the Scottish nationalists on the rampage saying that the Scotland Bill came before the House first and that Scotland should therefore have its referendum first.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a fact that part of the reasons for the proposals for Scotland and Wales being spatchcocked together was that the then Leader of the House, Lord Glenamara, thought that he could get Second Reading, Committee and Report stages and Third Reading on the Floor of the House in six days?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend has studied these matters carefully, but I do not think that what he has said was the only reason. Much of the argument concerned whether we should deal with Scotland before Wales, or vice versa.
There would be difficulties in holding a referendum in one country before the referendum in the other. Progress is being made on the Scotland Bill in another place and that measure may get on the statute book before the Wales Bill. The question is whether we should go ahead with the referendum in Scotland before the Wales Bill has been through all its stages in Parliament. I think that this would be the wrong way to deal with the matter. We should wait until both Bills have been through all their stages in this House and another place so that we know their eventual content.
If a General Election came first, there would be a three-month delay, but both referendums should be held on the same day. There could then be no accusations of Scotland or Wales being put first. They would be treated equally.
Essentially, the media in Wales should deal with the Welsh Bill and the media in Scotland with the Scottish Bill, although the media in England will naturally get involved in the discussions. That would be the fairest way to deal with the matter and I hope that this will be the recommendation of the Government.
The new clause says:
If a proclamation summoning a new Parliament is made".
I do not know whether there is to be a proclamation for the European Parliament, but we shall soon have a British Parliament and a European Parliament and I wonder whether we shall have to be careful in future to have regard to that fact in the wording of clauses.

4.45 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Despite the characteristic courtesy and helpfulness of the Minister in bringing forward the new clause, I wish to speak against it—though not to vote against it—on two grounds.
The first is the narrow ground of party advantage. It would be greatly to the benefit of the Conservative Party if the referendum in Wales and the General Election were held on the same day. The more devolution figures in the General Election campaign, the more it will be to the advantage of the Conservative Party. The electorate would have only two choices. If a voter wanted devolution, he could support Plaid Cymru and if he were opposed to devolution, he would support the Conservative Party. Nothing else would be relevant.
Despite the heroic speeches of the hon. Members for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and Pontypool (Mr. Abse) who speak so valiantly against the Bill—and occasionally vote against it—the Labour Party, despite the total failure of any of its members except the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) to turn up and support the Bill, is committed to the Bill. Opposition Members have been conspicuous by their absence and the Conservatives will have


no difficulty in portraying the Labour Party as being half-hearted on this issue and in telling the electors that if they want devolution they should vote for Plaid Cymru and if they do not want devolution they should vote Conservative.
On the narrow party ground, I should like to see the General Election and the referendum coincide, but there is a more impartial reason for my hope that the gap between a General Election and the referendum will not be too long, and I hope that I shall carry the Minister at least a little way with me.
My concern is that the Bill builds into the British constitution a permanent conflict between the Assembly and this House. The longer the time between a General Election and the referendum that will lead on to the formation of the Assembly, the more that conflict is likely to be aggravated. The longer the gap, the more inevitable it is that reaction will set in against the verdict reached at the preceding General Election.
If the gap is more than a few weeks, it is likely that, for reasons that have little to do with the well-being of Wales but have a great deal to do with regret over what was done in the General Election, the people of Wales will tend to elect to Cardiff representatives of the opposite political colour to those they sent to Westminster. This is a phenomenon with which those who have been in government are only too familiar. The closer the referendum is to the General Election the more likely it is that there will be some coincidence between the representation at Westminster and that at Cardiff.
I do not want to make too much of this point. We all know the grip that the Labour Party machine has on the valleys of South Wales, loosening though it is—and we are all anxious to loosen it as much as possible. However, this is a valid consideration.
The longer the interval between a General Election and elections to the Assembly being triggered off by the referendum, the greater the risk of that conflict which is the inherent vice in the Bill.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) must not assume that because my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) and I are the only hon.

Members on the Labour side of the Committee who are in favour of the Bill or that the present attendance of the Labour Benches is any reflection on the support of Welsh Labour Members for this Bill. The overwhelming majority of Labour Members representing Welsh seats are in support of the Bill. The Opposition Front Bench should not get too excited about this. We know that they are on a losing argument.
The reason why more of my hon. Friends are not here—everyone knows it—is that a number of them are Ministers and they are presently conducting their departmental work. Shortly, when they have finished, they will return to the Chamber.
I turn now to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) who described the confusion that existed last Thursday. I agree that there was a good deal of confusion. It was on the Plaid Cymru side, because that party did not realise the full implications of what it was doing. It led the serried ranks of the Conservative Party into the Lobby. Conservative Members did not know what they were doing. Plaid Cymru Members had some idea, but the Tory Members had no idea at all.
I heard several Tory Members asking later "Have we voted in the right way?" Last Thursday they were voting in force for something in which they do not believe. They will be given the opportunity later to repair the slight damage that they did. I am sure that at that stage they will join us in setting the matter right. That was the situation—

Mr. Wigley: rose—

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member might do well not to intervene at this stage, in the interests of his party and of himself.
I now turn to the point at issue. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said, with some passion, that he thought that there was an overwhelming case for not holding the two referendums on the same date. I do not agree with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare said that there was an overwhelming and logical case for holding the two referendums on the same day. I am not impressed with that argument either. All those who have spoken have


made heavy weather of this issue. I do not think that it matters at all. The people of Wales and the people of Scotland will come to their own conclusion. They are perfectly capable of doing so.
For example, next week there will be local authority elections in England, Wales and Scotland. They are not being held on the same day. The elections in Scotland are to be held on Tuesday and the elections in England and Wales are to be held on Thursday. There is no passionate call that they should be held on the same day for some great political reason.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman on a matter of fact? I do not think that there are elections in Wales next Thursday. There are in England, but not in Wales.

Mr. Hughes: That is a relief, anyway. My hon. Friends must not be scared of this issue. It will be a matter for the Government of the day to decide when the referendums are held. There may be circumstances in Scotland, public holidays of one kind or another, which do not exist in Wales, and vice versa. Let it be a matter of common sense, at the time, when the referendums are held. We are making too much of this, for a petty political purpose which is unworthy of the Committee. I therefore suggest that we do not prolong it any further.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: There is one minor argument for the separation of the referenda from a General Election. Forgive me if I call them "referenda" rather than "referendums". There are some English Members of this Committee who may well want to be involved in the referendum campaign. I would not be a bit surprised if the right hon Member for Cambridgeshite (Mr. Pym) and the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mt. Brittan) were to go to Wales because, heaven knows, the Welsh Conservative Party will be a little thin on the ground. It will need some outside assistance if the campaign is to be waged at all. Knowing the scrupulous fairness of my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and Aberdare (Mr. Evans), I am expecting an invitation to speak in their constituencies so that both sides of the case

may be fairly represented, just as I am expecting an invitation to West Lothian.
It seems to be essential that, if the two referenda are to be held within the same year, they should be held on the same day. Otherwise it is inevitable that the result of one will influence the result of the other. I note what my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) says. He makes a fair point about local elections. But local elections are not on the same issue in two separate parts of the United Kingdom. Here the issues will be seen as similar if not exactly the same.
If we are to judge by public opinion polls—and I would be the first to confess they are a bad guide—were the Scottish referendum to be held first, that would increase the chance of a "Yes" vote in Wales. Were the Welsh referendum to be held first, that might increase the chances of a "No" vote in Scotland. That is the way I read public opinion at the moment. Equally, if the referenda were separated by more than a few months it might be that the Assembly in the country in which the referendum had been held first would already be in existence. It could well be that that Assembly was having the inevitable teething troubles that any rational man must expect such an Assembly to have. That again might have an effect upon the result of a referendum in the other country. It seems to be highly desirable that they should be held at the same time.
I do not see any great difficulty about the media. It is true that radio and TV news coverage is national, but otherwise we do not have to worry too much about national newspapers printed in London, since I beg leave to doubt whether the referendum in Wales will be the lead story in national newspapers printed in London on every day of the campaign. Great importance attaches to the local Press. My constituents will get a bit of a barrage about the Welsh referendum because my local paper serves part of mid-Wales, including the constituency of the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). In this context the local papers are just as important as the national Press.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare touched on another matter to which I wish to refer, namely the interaction


of what is happening now with what happened last week. Unless we pass this new clause, we shall have a remarkable situation. My interpretation of the Bill at the moment, following the deletion of Clause 82, is that it would become effective upon Royal Assent. There may be legal argument about that, but that is a possible interpretation. The Bill would become effective in the sense of a transfer of power from the Secretary of State to a non-existent Assembly. What we do in the interim unless that damage is repaired, I do not know. I have volunteered to become Viceroy of Wales for a short period, but I do not think that the Minister of State has accepted the offer.
We have a difficulty, and it is compounded if we add this clause today and fail to repair that damage. If we postulate that the Royal Assent to this Bill were by chance—I am not making a forecast—to precede a General Election by only two or three months, and it was impossible to hold the referendum between Royal Assent and that General Election, we should be saying that there could not be a referendum until six months after that Royal Assent, and yet, if my interpretation of the deletion of Clause 8 be right, the Bill by then would have been effective for six months before the referendum could be held. That is abundantly nonsense and stems from the joint irresponsibility of the Conservative Party and Plaid Cymru last week.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assure the Committee that, the Conservative Party and Plaid Cymru having made a nonsense, the Government—who have been so sensible in their handling of the measure—will take the earliest opportunity to set matters to rights.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: We have had a debate essentially about whether the referendums should be held on the same day in Scotland and Wales, although some hon. Members have strayed a little into some of the surrounding side issues which affect the referendum.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) asked me, at the start of his own brief contribution, whether there had been any change in the Government's attitude, and I confirm that there has been no change.
The timing of the Royal Assent to both pieces of legislation is obviously of considerable importance. The Scotland Bill, it so happens, is proceeding through Parliament ahead of the Wales Bill. We hope that it will be possible for both Bills to receive Royal Assent during the course of this legislative Session, but, of course, we are not totally in control of these events. The House of Commons has to take decisions, and decisions have to be taken in another place. But I confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that there has been no change in the Government's attitude. We must work with the circumstances as they arise on the matter of the timing of the legislation reaching the statute book, and with anything else which might happen.
The House has the final say in regard to the referendum, because the Government must come forward with an order, under the provisions of Schedule 12 of the Bill, and that order must be approved by the House of Commons before the referendum date can be agreed to.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) drew attention to the confusion which occurred with the decision of the Committee to delete Clause 82. I think that the responsibility for that rests entirely with the unholy alliance between Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives. The most charitable conclusion one can draw is that neither knew what the other was doing, and the total confusion which must have been evident when hon. Members met each other in the Lobby must have been amusing to watch. Indeed, one might have been tempted, had one known about it, to go into the Lobby for no other reason than to observe the happy greetings which must have been exchanged between the Conservative spokesmen and those of the Plaid Cymru when they found themselves in an alliance for which they had not bargained.
I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin that of course the Government will seek to put matters right. The fact that a majority of the Committee behaves in a foolish way does not absolve the Government from seeking to put matters right, and we shall seek to do so when we reach the Report stage of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin would make an excellent viceroy


for Wales. I have been wondering for some time what would be an adequate description of his style, and I think that he is indeed vice-regal. He has all the style and manner which would suit the job, but I am sorry to inform him that we shall be able to put matters right in such a way as will deprive him of that interesting employment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) struck a very important note when he said that we are perhaps making too much of this and when he asked whether it matters a great deal that the referendums are held on the same day or on different days. I suspect that it does not make a great deal of difference.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) referred to broadcasting and to the way in which the media will handle the referendum. Of course, we hope that the media will give a fair balance to both sides. I do not think that there is any reason to doubt that the media will behave in a way which will give a fair balance to both sides.
There was an interesting suggestion that the referendums should be held on different days in order to allow English Conservative Members to take part in both campaigns. If the referendums were held on the same day, I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire or the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) would be in Scotland or in Wales. Perhaps it might be wiser for them to remain in England on that day, in view of their policy.
I can, as I have said, confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we have made no change. These, in a sense, are side issues and not quite on the point of the amendment, but I hope that I have indicated the Government's position.

Mr. Pym: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him to say exactly what he means by the words he used—that the Government have made no change in their position? As I understand the matter, that is, of course, subject to the progress of the Bills through Parliament and their passage towards the statute book, if that is what is to happen. Subject to that, I understand that it is the Government's clear intention to hold the referendums on the same day.

Mr. Smith: I think that it has been stated in answer to a parliamentary Question. Speaking from memory, I think we said that it would be our objective to seek to have the referendums on the same day—subject, of course, to the obvious difficulty that might be caused if one Bill received Royal Assent before the other.

Mr. Hooson: In an early part of his speech the Minister seemed to throw doubt on whether the Welsh Bill would achieve the Royal Assent in this legislative Session. Was that merely a form of words—

Mr. Smith: We cannot guarantee it.

Mr. Hooson: —used indiscriminately, or was there any specific reason why the Minister threw doubt on it?

Mr. Smith: I read some amazing stories in the Western Mail from time to time but I do not take them all very seriously. Many newspapers carry amazing stories on this issue. I was not casting any doubt. I believe that, if the House of Commons and another place behave with reasonable common sense in the matter, we shall get the Wales Bill on to the statute book in this legislative Session. It is very much part of our policy, and we have no reason to believe that it will not be achieved. I pointed out that the Scotland Bill is ahead of the Wales Bill. Therefore, on that timescale it is easier for it to achieve Royal Assent in this legislative Session, but we hope very much that both will do so, and nothing that I said was intended in any way to cast doubt on our faith that that can be achieved.

Sir Raymond Gower: Surely the Government should have no great difficulty in saying that they can put both Bills through in this legislative Session, because there is not a vast programme of legislation. Few Governments have had a sketchier amount of legislation in a whole Session than the Government have in the present Session. Surely there can be no doubt in the Minister's mind about the progress of both Bills.

Mr. Smith: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman. I would not have said that we are engaged in sketchy legislation. I have reason to know, perhaps more than most hon. Members, how intense our legislative programme has


been this year. It has been concentrated on a smaller number of Bills than usual, but none the less it has been an intense legislative programme. I do not think that we have any reason to doubt our capacity to do it, but there is another place involved in these matters. The guillotine, which was such a useful way of organising our debate on the Scotland Bill and on the Wales Bill, is not available to the other place. We have to take all these factors into account.
While we are on the subject, I draw the attention of Conservative Members to the fact that the House of Lords, in dealing with the Scotland Bill, is not at a point very different from that which we reached under the guillotine in the House of Commons. I think that indicates how wise and sensible our decision was, and, indeed, how generous it was for the Scotland Bill, at least.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Myer), for not dealing, when I was speaking, with a point he had raised. He said that he was not in favour of the amendment. He was speaking with his tongue in his cheek, but, none the less, he could have avoided the dilemma if he had not voted for the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to the Scotland Bill. I have checked the Division list and found that the hon. Gentleman managed to vote with my hon. Friend on that occasion. Any dilemma in which he now finds himself, therefore, is one that he has created for himself.
None the less, I thing that he was right to draw attention to the difficulty there might be for us if there were a reaction against whichever party were to win the next General Election. That is something that the supporters of devolution in Wales will have to take onboard, for after the Labour victory in the next General Election the amount of support for devolution will be increased, if that theory is correct. But we shall face that prospect with fortitude.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 2

SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE

'(1) For the purposes of this Act there may be appointed a Speaker's Conference, being a conferenec convened at the request of the Prime Minister and presided over by the Speaker of the House of Commons with the function of considering and making recommendations to the House of Commons relating to the appropriate number of Members of that House representing Welsh constituencies after the enactment of this Act.
(2) Those participating in the Conference shall be Members of the House of Commons invited to do so by the Speaker, who shall secure that the balance of parties in the House of Commons is reflected, so far as practicable, among the participants in the Conference'—[Mr. Nicholas Edwards.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Thanks to the staccato, effective and oft-repeated interventions of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), the consequences of the Bill upon Welsh representation at Westminster have seldom been very far from our thoughts during our debates. It has emerged as a central issue, and one that cannot be avoided.
With fearful inevitability, we have been led again and again to the same conclusion—that one effect of the Bill will be to create an ever-strengthening demand for a reduction in the number of Welsh Members of Parliament and in their influence upon this place, while recognising that that demand itself provides no solution to the particular problem that the hon. Gentleman has so often posed to the House. But, frequently as the West Lothian question has impinged itself on our debates, the opportunity for a full discussion of it has not arisen. Our new clause is designed to provide that opportunity.
It is right that a central issue of this kind should be fully debated and not covered simply by interjection into other discussions. Parliament and the Welsh people have to face up to the issue involved. I and my right hon, and hon. Friends wish that it were not so. We deplore the existence of a Bill which forces us to consider the issue. We would not otherwise wish to do so. We regret the necessity to do so. With passionate


conviction, I believe that the interests of Wales are best defended by Welsh Members in this place, and that if a reduction in our numbers was forced on us Wales would be the worse for it. Because of its special problems, Wales needs the strongest possible representation at Westminster. But the question cannot be dodged in the case of this Bill any more than it could in the case of the Scotland Bill. It cannot be dodged because it is unpalatable or avoided because I or other hon. Members do not wish to face up to it.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Can the hon. Gentleman refresh my memory? I apologise for employing him upon a research errand. Did the Conservative Opposition move a similar new clause on the Scotland Bill?

Mr. Edwards: An identical new clause was indeed moved on the Scotland Bill. If I may refresh the right hon. Gentleman's memory still further, he made a particularly eloquent and convincing speech about it. I refreshed my memory about what he said on that occasion before rising to speak this afternoon.
If it is an inevitable consequence of the Bill—as I believe it to be—then we should debate it. The rules of order within which we operate dictate the form of our new clause. They are limited and they restrict what we are able to do. In fact, probably the only other way in which we could have raised the issue would have been by an amendment, and I am not even sure whether it would have in order to write into the Bill a specific number of seats for Wales. After all, that is what was done with the Government of Ireland Act.
But personally, I do not think it right that the number of seats—or matters of this kind generally—should be decided by legislation introduced on a party basis in this House of Commons. We Conservatives believe that constitutional change should be done on the widest possible basis of consent and that changes in the numbers coming to this place are properly and appropriately decided by a Speaker's Conference. That is, of course, what has been done within the last few weeks with regard to Northern Ireland—where recommendations have been made by the Conference to this House.
Therefore, I move this new clause believing that the Speaker's Conference is the appropriate mechanism for consideirng these issues and also in the knowledge that there really is no other way open to us to bring this issue before the Committee for full debate.

Mr. Leo Abse: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to disclaim what is the clear intention of this new clause, namely, that the Conservative Party wishes to have a Speaker's Conference which has the goal not of increasing constituencies in Wales but of deliberately reducing the number of Members of Parliament that will come from Wales if devolution goes through?

Mr. Edwards: I shall say more about this during my speech. But I have already strongly expressed the view that the Conservative Party would in no way wish to reduce the number of representatives for Wales. We think that it would be damaging to do so. But we believe that we are faced with the inevitable consequences of this Bill and that this is likely to be one of them. Before passing the Bill we believe that the House of Commons should consider those consequences very fully.
It is an appalling fact that this Bill is forcing so many of us to do things, at various stages, that we really do not want. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), whom I am glad to see in this place, marches through the Lobby in support of a measure which he thinks is inadequate because he hopes that it is a stepping stone to his real objective. Large numbers of Government Members troop through the Lobby to support a measure they dislike for a variety of political reasons. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has told us that he casts his vote in support of a measure which he regards as an unmitigated disaster in order to get the referendum result which he believes will destroy it.
I am forced to move a new clause providing for a Speaker's Conference that I do not want at this moment—which might recommend a reduction in the number of Welsh Members, which I would deplore—because I believe that it would be an act of total madness and irresponsibility not to consider the consequences of this legislation before we pass it and without at least attempting to provide some


mechanism to produce some kind of practical working arrangement.
5.15 p.m.
It is not the fault of the Conservatives that we face up to an issue that could otherwise be left in peace and quiet. During the debate on the Scotland Bill, the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) opposed our new clause because he thought that our motives might be misinterpreted, in precisely the way that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has just chosen to misinterpret them. But at least the hon. Member for Penistone was absolutely clear where responsibility lay. He said:
we must be very careful that we do not appear as wishing to respond to certain dangerous tendencies that will inevitably develop if the Bill is passed. The people responsible for these dangerous tendencies will be the promoters of the Bill, not its opponents. I do not want its opponents to be put into a false light on this matter. The Government and the supporters of the legislation must assume responsibility for these dangerous developments.
What are these dangerous consequences? Obviously, no matter what I say or what is said by any other right hon, or hon. Member, and no matter how we vote on the amendment today, once the Bill is passed and its implementation begins, many of our constituents are bound to begin to raise the question of Scottish over-representation.
To that the hon. Member for West Lothian interjected:
Of course". [Official Report, 31st January 1978; Vol. 943, c. 291.]
I believe that the same is true about the Wales Bill. It is the fault of the Government who have introduced a measure that remorselessly forces the conclusion that the representation of Wales is unlikely to be left untouched or, at least, that there will be great pressures to change it. The Secretary of State and Ministers generally say that this is not so. Like King Canute they seek to hold back the tide. But the difference between the king and them is that he was wise and they were foolish. He was seeking to convince his courtiers that he could not hold back the tide. They are seeking to convince theirs that that is precisely what they are able to do. Indeed, worse, they quite unnecessarily destroy the dam and then seek to hold back the water with their bare hands.
Those of us who are Welsh Members of Parliament will see our role changed

in a devastating fashion, as the hon. Member for Pontypool has frequently pointed out. The day-to-day control of the majority of issues that most concern our constituents will be removed from us—matters such as housing, education, health, social services, roads and all the things that constituents come to see us about week in and week out in our surgeries.
I suppose that we shall have to say to them "I am sorry, there is very little we can do about this. This is no longer my responsibility or the responsibility of Parliament. You had better to go to see Assemblyman Jones. Oh, but by the way, by my voice and my vote I shall be deciding on exactly these issues in Oxford, Abingdon, Newcastle, Southampton and London". We then have to expect our constituents to understand this extraordinary position.
What are we to do when we come to face them in a General Election? What are we to say to them in our Election addresses? Will our Election addresses say: "Vote for me and elect my party because of our policies on these great social issues in England, but, of course, I shall not be able to do very much about them down here in Wales"?
It is no good saying that we shall still have a full say on the great economic issues or on defence and foreign policy, because very frequently it is the social questions that decide General Elections. It is also no good saying that we shall still decide on the primary legislation, because primary legislation is only a fraction of our duty or of the responsibility of government in this place.
It is through secondary legislation and administration that huge areas of government are decided and carried on. For example, education policy is decided largely by Government within a broad framework of infrequent Education Acts. We can examine a whole string of social issues plucked from current experience and debate. Without legislation we could end the sale of council houses, abolish Health Service charges, abolish pay beds, increase bus subsidies or change the rate support grant.
We shall not be able to debate ministerial responsibility or ask parliamentary Questions on huge areas of Government responsibility in Wales. If we did raise them Ministers would reply tartly that it


was not their responsibility. Yet, we shall be able to raise those matters in respect of England.
We and our Scottish colleagues, numbering more than 100, will decide the political fate of England. We shall be powerless over most of the great social issues in Wales and Scotland. But we shall have decisive power on occasions at Westminster. We shall not decide only the outcome of individual votes on separate issues but also the political character of the United Kingdom Government and the Government of England. I do not believe that that will be tolerable for more than the shortest time to English Members or the English electorate.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member mentioned defence. Like me, he has been sitting here for many days. I wondered whether he had tumbled to the fact that there is to be a defence committee of the Welsh Assembly, which was outlined in the Lords yesterday. I certainly thought that it would not be proper for the Assemblies to set up committees on foreign affairs, defence, unemployment and other non-devolved subjects.

Mr. Edwards: I am interested in that. I have not caught up with that development. I suppose the situation is that whatever powers are transferred, there is nothing to stop the Assemblies from setting up committees to consider other matters. I do not know what the committees will do, because they will not have control over these matters or over the expenditure. We shall have to explore this issue when the Scotland Bill comes back from the Lords.
We have been told that this anomaly existed for Northern Ireland. But initially there were only 13 Members, and later 12 with the abolition of the university seats. In that case there were not 107 Members. The price that Northern Ireland paid for a long time, and up to the present time, was a 30 per cent. under-representation in the House of Commons. In addition, on no occasion since the War have the votes of Irish Members changed the political colour of the party forming a Government here. On no occasion would Labour have been in power instead of the Conservatives if the Conservatives had lost the votes of the Northern Ireland Unionists. But there were occasions—on steel, for example—when

the influence of Ulster votes was of importance.
This was regarded as an acceptable price for avoiding the greater problems inherent in the Northern Ireland situation. By accepting this small sacrifice we were able to bury the Irish question—or so we thought—for 50 years or more.
Wales is not under-represented in that way. In terms of population it is overrepresented, but not in terms of equity. The average electorate in England is 66,056, in Wales, 57,088, in Scotland 53,336 and in Northern Ireland 83,076. There are proposals to change the Northern Ireland representation.
The disparity in the size of electorates undoubtedly has been seen by some as a good reason for reducing the number of Welsh Members. It is proposed that another 80 representatives should be elected to an Assembly in Cardiff. That means that we shall have about 116 representatives doing the work that is at present borne by 36. However, Wales has been over-represented for well-established and generally accepted reasons. I do not recall that the position has been challenged in the House of Commons for a long time.
The geographical size of some of the constituencies has been an important factor. The need to balance the interests of the South with those of Mid-and North Wales has also been a factor, as has the desire to guarantee an effective Welsh voice against the preponderance of English voices.
Even with an Assembly the United Kingdom Parliament and Government will continue to be responsible for many of the most crucial matters affecting Wales. Taxation, foreign affairs, the economy, the EEC, defence, agriculture, energy, industry, the block budget and the override powers, will all be the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament. In particular, the United Kingdom Parliament will continue to enact primary legislation for Wales.
This brings me to another matter which is not generally understood. It concerns the way in which all legislation in future will have to be specially tailored to suit the existence of the new Assembly. As a result of the proposals in the Bill the powers to be devolved under Schedule 2 can be altered at any time. They can be


increased or decreased at any stage and in any Bill that passes through the House of Commons. We shall therefore have to examine every clause and every line in every Bill, ask ourselves whether it is a matter which is to apply to Wales and what we wish the powers of the Assembly to be.
There will have to be a clarification in every Bill of that Bill's relationship to the Assembly. There is nothing fixed, stable or permanent about what we are discussing today. From time to time there will be good reasons why Governments might be tempted to extend or withdraw particular parts of a Bill. In such circumstances Welsh Members will have a crucial part to play. There will be a real need for a full quota to represent Welsh interests.
The Kilbrandon Commission calculated on a parity basis that Wales should have 31 Members instead of 36. It recommended no change in the number for a scheme of Executive devolution. But the essential feature of the scheme for Executive devolution, which the Commission was proposing when it made that recommendation, was that it would be applied in a more or less uniform way throughout the United Kingdom. That seems to be a fairly important qualification of that recommendation.
In the case of legislative devolution, the Commission recommended that there should be a reduction to parity. Indeed, it argued that there might well be a case for reducing the Scottish and Welsh representation to below the parity level in the legislative case following the Irish precedent. The argument is set out in paragraph 815 of the report.
One of the difficulties is that there is no clear-cut distinction between legislative and Executive devolution. The legislative process is complex. In this case it is being divided. Whatever the terms and definitions we shall have substantially different laws which will be applied in a substantially different way in Wales and in England as a result of the differences in secondary legislation and administration.
5.30 p.m.
Whatever the theoretical concepts, I have little doubt that people will feel that things are different. In politics, what

people feel matters a good deal more than the theory. We face a situation of incredible complexity, with Scottish, Welsh and English Members all having different roles and differing interests. That must inevitably create dissension and a demand for changes in the complex balance.
The problem arises because the Government's proposals are not based on the principles that surely should govern any constitution if a country is to remain stable and united. The first is that every citizen must be related to those who govern him at each level of power and authority in the same way. The second is that any one institution should bear the same responsibility, even if it is not exercised in exactly the same way, for any citizen, regardless of where he lives. In other words, the implications that Scotland and Wales cannot be part of a quasi-federal United Kingdom and England part of a unitary United Kingdom.
One must be clear about this. A reduction in the number of Welsh Members does not solve the problem. There will be a demand, and there has been a demand already, for a reduction in the powers as well. That brings me to the in and out option, the idea that Members might vote on some issues but not on others. The arguments against that option have been well developed since they were first examined in, I think, about 1893.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: It was in 1896.

Mr. Edwards: I accept the correction from my hon. Friend, than whom there is no one more expert.
The option is as unacceptable now as it was then. I do not wish to set out the whole case again. It was done with particular power in the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) of which I reminded him a short time ago, a speech in which he concentrated on this issue.
There is the impossibility of defining and dividing our business in the way that would be necessary, and there are the intolerable burdens that that impossible task would place on Mr. Speaker and the officers of the House. There is the indirect effect of every decision taken in this place for one part of the United Kingdom upon the finances of the other


part. One cannot pass measures without financial consequences which affect the whole of the State. There is the impossible situation that would be created for any Government, for part of their time acting as an Anglo-Welsh Government and for part of it as an English Government. They would never know whether they could carry legislation, and the concepts of ministerial responsibility would collapse.
For these and other reasons, it seems to me that the in and out solution has justifiably been the subject of ridicule for more than 80 years, although it must be said that that does not prevent people still proposing it today, because the problem will not go away, and the desperate search for a solution goes on.
It is not only Conservatives, as perhaps the hon. Member for Pontypool was implying, who are impelled to ask these questions. They have been asked again and again on his own Benches. I remember their being asked very eloquently by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), for example. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), speaking for the Scottish Liberals, not only asked these questions on 14th November last year but came to the conclusion that
it is imperative that clear conventions are invoked … by which Scottish Members do not vote on such matters."—[Official Report, 14th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 112.]
In other words, he opted for the in-and-out solution, though on the previous day his Leader had opted for a reduction in numbers to proportionality. Therefore, it is not only Conservatives who can be critcised for some vagueness or imprecision in the search for a solution. We cannot fairly be blamed for vagueness over a problem that we have not created.
Our solution is very simple. It is to drop the Bill that creates the problem. Therefore, I do not accept the criticism that in seeking to find a solution we are being vague and indefinite.
But the central argument advanced against our clause when a similar one was debated on the Scotland Bill was that it could produce no solution, because the problem was insoluble. That was the main reason that persuaded so many who share our concern about the issue to oppose our attempt to resolve it.
The critics point out, as I have done, that the in-and-out solution is unworkable and unjust, and that a reduction in Members leaves the problem unresolved. It applies whether there are 36, 31 or 15. They argue that if one has an insoluble problem there is no point in fudging it, that there is no point in going through an exercise in consultation to establish what they already judge to be a fact.
I share the critics' view that, given this obnoxious Bill, the problem is indeed insoluble. But we exist in a world where, if we cannot learn to solve insoluble problems, at least we sometimes have to learn to live with them. If the Bill by some mischance becomes law and is accepted by the people of Wales in a referendum, although I do not judge that that will happen, the problem will not go away. We shall have to learn to live with it. We shall have to find a modus vivendi. We shall have to make the best of a bad job. We shall have to discover, at least for a time, a politically acceptable compromise.
That compromise may not endure. The situation may prove so intolerable to the English Members that we shall be forced down the road to federalism or to some other political settlement. In my view, that is likely. This is not a settlement that we on the Conservative Benches expect to endure.
In the meantime, as a Parliament we should have to do our best to make the whole beastly thing work with a minimum of friction. If we did anything less than that, we should be failing in our duty.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I have been following with interest the hon. Gentleman's argument about the in-and-out system and his admission that some kind of federalism could take place. Do I fairly summarise the Conservative Party's position when I say that it is dead against any creeping devolution but in favour of creeping federalism?

Mr. Edwards: No. I said several times that we did not want this Bill. We do not want to set off down this road. What I have been seeking to do is to point out some of the unavoidable consequences with which we are faced if the Bill becomes law.
I take the view, and have taken it all along, that this is not a settlement that


can endure. If that is so, we are bound to be forced down a road to some other kind of eventual solution. I have argued on other occasions, and I do not want to repeat my argument today, that it is at least a possibility—though not, I think, at present a politically acceptable solution—that we shall move in some distant future towards a federal structure rather than the chaos produced by the Bill. But I do not wish to say more than that at this time.
We consider that the best way to seek the compromise that we shall have to find is by the traditional and well-tried method of a Speaker's Conference. If the Bill becomes law, I believe that those who say now that our proposal is a waste of time will find themselves caught up in a irresistible parliamentary movement towards just the kind of Speaker's Conference that we propose. Parliament will find itself in a completely new situation, which it will wish to examine. Even if the conference finally arrives, as it may and as I hope it will, at a justification of the status quo and the retention of the existing number of Welsh Members, the fact that it has done so will for a time make things work more smoothly.
The recommendations of Speakers' Conferences, if accepted, are accepted in the spirit that they should be made to work. I believe that for a time an effort would be made to make them work. A conclusion about the number of Members is much more likely to be accepted if it is arrived at by a body such as a Speaker's Conference than if it comes by way of the Canute-like declarations of a political party that has a considerable political interest in the outcome.
I commend the clause. If the Committee rejects it on the ground that it fails to provide a solution for an insoluble problem, the only logical alternative is to throw out the Bill altogether. I hope that our critics who join in that point of view will join us in doing exactly that on Third Reading.

Mr. Abse: We have heard an interesting but tortuous contribution from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards). With considerable clarity the hon. Gentleman adumbrated all the reasons for it being inevitable that there would be an erosion of the number of

Members of Parliament coming to the House of Commons from Wales in the event of the disaster of devolution taking place. The hon. Gentleman, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, gave clear and unequivocal notice that it would be the intention of the Conservative Party, if ever it came to power and if devolution existed, to refer the issue to a Speaker's Conference. That in the end could have only one conclusion—namely, a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament coming to the House of Commons from Wales.
But it is tortuous for the hon. Gentleman to claim that he would personally wish that in the end justifications for the retention of the existing position would emerge from such a Speaker's Conference, when at the same time he has in a powerful argument shown how inevitable it would be that the Speaker's Conference would come to the conclusion, taking into account opinion in the House of Commons, that there would have to be a radical reduction in the number of Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies.
The hon. Gentleman's argument leads us to the position that the ultimate conclusion of such a Speaker's Conference would be not merely that there should be parity so that the number of Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies should be reduced from 36 to 31, but that inevitably, since the task and role of the Members representing Welsh constituencies would be so reduced, the demand would come, and would undoubtedly be reflected in the conclusions of the Speaker's Conference that the Conservative Party is proposing, that the number would be less than 31.
I do not doubt that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is exactly what will come about in the event of having devolution and having a Conservative Government. From the time that the controversy began I have warned the Labour movement in Wales that it was walking into a trap. I have warned it that if it decided to vote to be a devolutionist it would inevitably mean a permanent Conservative Government in Britain. I have warned the trade union and Labour movement in Wales that if ever, unhappily, a Conservative Government came into existence they


would seize the opportunity to reduce the number of Members of Parliament coming from Wales, and that devolution would give them absolute justification for that to come about.
5.45 p.m.
The Labour electorate of Wales must understand that if it voted for devolution it would be voting to end Labour Governments in Westminster. All history shows that that would be so. There would not have been Labour Governments for the past 28 years if it were not because of the opinions that have come from Scotland and Wales. The consequence, which must be understood by the whole Labour electorate in Wales and by the trade union and Labour movement, is that it would be suicidal to vote for devolution, to vote "Yes" in the referendum.

Sir Raymond Gower: It is not possible that some of the electors of whom the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) is speaking might take the view that they would be prepared to exchange the opportunity of getting a Labour Government returned occasionally at Westminster for a longer term of Labour control in Wales and Scotland?

Mr. Abse: I have no doubt that the people of Wales, who have consistently acted as the dynamic for the creation of Labour Governments in Westminster, know full well that the leverage that they want to exercise for the whole of Britain exists in this place. I have no doubt that they will reveal that understanding in the referendum, when they will make it clear that they wish the present position to be maintained.
The people of Wales must understand that the speech delivered today by the hon. Member for Pembroke is a clear and unequivocal notice on the part of the Conservative Party that it is wholly committed, in the event of devolution taking place, to the setting up of a Speaker's Conference, which would mean a severe reduction in the representation of Wales as for Scotland. It would mean the end of Labour Governments for Britain.
When I entered this controversy a long time ago I emphasised the loss of Labour Governments and was described as an alarmist, as someone looking for difficulties that would not take place. Therefore, unusual as it may be, I am grateful

to the hon. Gentleman, after the long debates that have taken place over two Sessions, for at last declaring that the Conservative Party has clearly taken up the position, and allowed it to be known in Wales, that that which it proposes will undoubtedly hand on a plate the opportunity for permanent Conservative Government in Britain if a "Yes" vote is recorded when the referendum is put before the people.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has said that the Speaker's Conference and its conclusions would be both inevitable and fully justified. Is it not likely that exactly the same result would emerge if a Labour Government were returned to this place following a General Election and we had the Bill? Surely it is likely to happen whatever Government are in this place because of the pressures that have been created by the Bill. Surely that will happen notwithstanding the desire of any political party.

Mr. Abse: I do not doubt that a Labour Government in this place, even if the justifications came into existence, would resist the demand out of political self-interest. I realise, however, that we live in a democratic community in which, inevitably, oscillations take place that lead, as they have always led, to different Governments arriving at different times. It is only a question of when the position will be created when there will be a radical reduction in the number of Members of Parliament representing Welsh and Scottish constituencies.
I should regard it as tragic if there were a reduction of Members from Wales and a gutting of their roles entirely. Wales has supplied to Westminster a humanity that often it would otherwise have lacked. The whole history of the contributions that have come from Wales to Westminster has shown that Wales is concerned primarily not with ideology, but with humanising the legislative process from the time of Lloyd George, who was responsible for bringing in the old-age pension, to the time of Nye Bevan, who carved out the Health Service, and of Jim Griffiths, who saw and brought into being the Industrial Injuries Acts and the National Insurance Acts. That was because the prime concern in Wales was about people, not power. It has inevitably meant that concern has been brought into


the House of Commons for particular problems—for the disadvantaged.
The Members of Parliament from Wales, precisely because they belonged to a minority group, have always had the capacity to empathise with those who may be minority groups. I am glad that I can claim to have concluded the divorce measures started by Lady Eirene White.
I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State fox Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), was able to participate vigorously and to play a prominent role in dealing with the problems of those who suffer as a result of divorces.
I am glad that one can identify people—such as the Foreign Secretary, who is a Welshman—who have assisted those of us from Wales who wanted to alter the adoption laws and to bring into effect the Children's Act.
Wherever one goes, one will find, looking at the history of the last 40 or 50 years, the particular quality which has emerged out of Welsh culture. Wales has humanised Westminster and brought relief and succour to minority groups throughout Britain. Wales has spoken for the disadvantaged. Wales has been able to persuade the rest of the House of Commons to bring about solutions which alleviated problems which otherwise would have remained chronic.
It would indeed be an extraordinarily sad day if we were to create conditions in which the Welsh voice at Westminster were to become muted, as inevitably it would if devolution were to come about. I agree with the hon. Member for Pembroke that we would become hopelessly politically ineffective. We would be estranged from our colleagues, because we would be regarded as presumptuous if we sought to intervene in determining any question, including all the social questions in which Wales has played a great part. It would mean that we would be pariahs almost in the House of Commons. Instead of having the capacity to be able to mould the future of the whole of Britain, we would be mere supernumeries.
The people of Wales are profoundly political. They revel in and enjoy their politics. They have the capacity to give to the rest of Britain, often polemically,

but certainly with an elan which is often lacking in other areas. I believe that it would be tragic if that were lost to the House of Commons. I believe that the people of Wales would also feel that it was tragic.
The great figures who have come from Wales—for example, Nye Bevan and Jim Griffiths; figures whom the Welsh Labour movement has thrown up—would no longer have a place here. Whatever our intellectual capacities, we would be reduced to mere pygmies in the House of Commons. That is not the role that Wales wants for its own people. It believes that it can give more.
I have no doubt that in the referendum Wales will exercise its customary political wisdom. In doing so, as a result of the notice given this afternoon by the hon. Member for Pembroke, the people of Wales, by voting "No" to the referendum, will at the same time be saying "Yes" to the continuation of Labour Governments in Britain.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), in moving the new clause, made it clear that it was mainly, through not perhaps entirely, for instructional purposes that he did so. It was in order, once again, as we approach our ultimate parting from these three Bills—the double-headed Bill, the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill—to reinforce the underlying theorem which has become known as the West Lothian proposition. Perhaps, therefore, there is no need to use much powder and shot upon the objections to the method chosen in the new clause of again highlighting the insoluble problem. However, I think it should be said that it is objectionable that we should write into a statute prescriptions, and, what is more, detailed prescriptions, for a Speaker's Conference.
The device of a Speaker's Conference, which has upon the whole worked very well since the First World War, is a device domestic to the House of Commons. It is its own business. It is a source of advice which the Prime Minister of the day calls upon by means of the intermediary of the Speaker. It has its own rules and its own methods, and it is the Speaker himself who summons it and decides upon its composition. Therefore, I do not think that it is appropriate that its nature should be prescribed by an Act of Parliament.
One understands, of course, the conveniences of drafting the new clause in this way. One outstanding convenience is that one does not have to answer the unanswerable question oneself. One does not have to write into the new clause a reduced figure which might lay those who produced it open to misunderstandings, such as the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has just exemplified. Besides, it would be a little difficult, whatever number one chose, to explain why one had chosen that particular number.
Although the impossibility of finding a number which is defensible helps to prove the proposition once again, it is a little awkward to move a new clause for the purpose of demonstrating that what one has written into it is indefensible and can have no logical basis. Therefore, I think that the hon. Member for Pembroke should not be expected to apologise for having resorted to the well-tried method of passing to sonic other body—a commission, a board, or whatever it may be; in this case, a Speaker's Conference—a question which has already been recognised as being insoluble.
I was surprised, therefore, that, at the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Pembroke nevertheless called upon the Committee to pass the new clause. It seemed to me that that was injudicious and pessimistic. It seemed that he assumed the passage of the Bill, which I think we should be reluctant to assume, and that we were thereby invited unnecessarily to affirm what was intended to demonstrate the impossibility of solving, by any such means, the problem which legislation of this kind creates. Therefore my right hon. and hon. Friends will not be supporting this new clause.
6.0 p.m.
Perhaps there is a practical and local reason why it would be singularly inappropriate for us to do so. The House, almost without dissent, has accepted and has undertaken to implement the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference, which recommended that the representation of Ulster should be put on a fair and equal basis with the rest of the kingdom.
Indeed, if the Boundary Commission, as I anticipate it will, finds it convenient to avail itself of the permission to exceed the average figure of 17 seats by one, the

representation of Northern Ireland will be approximately on the same basis as that which is enjoyed today by Wales. That is something which is fully justifiable by the similarity of many parts of the Province to conditions in the Principality of Wales.
The sequence of events leading to that result began in the earlier stages—there were no later stages—of the abortive two-headed Bill of the previous Session, when it was roundly declared that whatever form of devolution was settled upon for Scotland, as far as the Government were concerned this would make no difference to the representation of Scotland in this House.
Ulster has been used to an extensive form of devolution for some 50 years, and even since it was abolished in 1972, the prospect of restoring that form of devolution has been held, until recently, to debar us from enjoying the privilege of fair and equal representation in this House.
Illogical, therefore, though it might have been as applied to Scotland, the declaration of the Government was that the matter of devolution could be regarded quite separately from the matter of representation in this House. This was the key which opened for Northern Ireland the door to full and fair representation which we now look to enjoy with the general and almost universal consent of this House.
Therefore, it would be grotesque for us, even for demonstrational purposes, to go through the Lobby in support of the new clause, which invokes a Speaker's Conference to reduce the representation for a part of the Kingdom upon which devolution in administration and secondary legislation is being conferred.
I am sure that my apology for our absence from the Lobby on this occasion will be readily accepted. I hasten to assure the hon. Member for Pembroke that we shall, as heretofore on this Bill and on the Scotland Bill, be taking the more excellent course—that of reforming it altogether. In other words, having proved to ourselves the West Lothian proposition, we must draw the conclusion from that that we are doing something which we ought not to be attempting.
The West Lothin proposition, in its application to the Scotland Bill, ran in the simple form that it was impossible


satisfactorily in a unitary parliamentary State to create legislative devolution in one part only of that State.
The Wales Bill has enabled us to extend that theorem, and add a rider to it. In its extended form, as exemplified by the contradictions and impossibilities of this legislation, it runs somewhat as follows—that it is impossible satisfactorily in a unitary parliamentary State to confer administrative devolution upon one part of that State to an extent which is not enjoyed by the other parts of that State. That indeed is what is happening here in relation to Wales.
In all parts of the United Kingdom there is administrative devolution in the form of local government. The devolved administrative powers are exercised by those who are answerable to elected assemblies. That devolution is, for practical purposes, uniform to the whole kingdom. A much greater degree of administrative devolution, not shared for example in England, would be conferred upon Wales by this Bill and consequently it brings back, although perhaps in a less crass form, but equally clearly, the contradictions and impossibilities which led us to say that either one must have a federal State or one must desist from the attempt to confer different forms of devolution, particularly legislative devolution, upon some but not all parts of that State.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: As always, the right hon. Member is constructing a fine argument in logic. However, he has left out one element in his analysis of the relationship between central and local government in the United Kingdom. Already there exists in Wales and Scotland a Department of State which does in fact intervene between the unitary central Parliament and Government and the elected representatives and the people in Wales and Scotland. We have had, since 1964, a decentralised Welsh Office, and the object of devolution is to ensure that the policies which are at the moment being carried out by individual Ministers within that Department of State are in future carried out by an elected Assembly.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member has provided an admirable support to the case that I was developing. Indeed, he

has greatly strengthened it, and I am much in his debt for bringing this to my attention.
Of course there has developed a separate branch of administration for Scotland, dating from the last century, for Wales, dating from the last 30 or 40 years, and for Northern Ireland, dating from 1972. But as with all the rest of the administration that the Government carry out, those who administer are responsible to this House, and that is exactly my point.
Under this Bill this House will cease to call to account those who administer in a devolved form what at present is administered by the Secretary of State, and that for which the Secretary of State, like any other Minister, is responsible to this House. The mere fact that the Departments are organised in a particular way—are organised regionally in some respects—does not alter the fundamental fact that for all those acts of Government they are responsible to the whole of the House of Commons, and to each Member of the House equally. On those subjects the constituents of each hon. Member have no other recourse than through their representative in this House. That is why all attempts to escape from the dilemma and the conundrum by reducing the representation are foredoomed to failure.
If the subject which is being dealt with is one which has not been devolved, then the part of the United Kingdom concerned is entitled to as full representation in this House for that purpose as any other part of the kingdom.
On the other hand, if this House is debating a subject which has been devolved, if it is calling to account a Minister who is not responsible for that administration in the relevant part of the United Kingdom, there is no justification for any Members at all from that part of the kingdom being in this House.
This is where one got into the old story of the in-and-out Members, the notion that in order to recognise the fact that these parts of the Kingdom were entitled to full representation in some circumstances and in other circumstances to none at all, it was expected that they could pop in and out according to the subject that was before the House.
I need not dwell upon the impracticability of that course because it was very well dealt with by the hon. Member for Pembroke in moving the new clause. All I need to mention again is that one does not deal with that by saying "Let us split the difference and have, say, half as many Members", because half as many Members does not deal with the problem. Half as many Members does not give one full Members when one is entitled to them or no Members when one is not entitled to them. It is, in fact, a nonsense.
Those who passed what is regarded as a precedent for this purpose, the Home Rule Bill for Ireland, 1912 to 1914, knew perfectly yell that it was illogical. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has been going around for some time saying that he intends to institute researches to discover on what basis the figure 13 was devised for the parliamentary representation of Northern Ireland under the 1920 and 1922 Acts. I can save the hon. Member a lot of trouble. He need engage in no such research. He will find no reasoning on the matter whatsoever, because there neither was any reasoning nor could have been. It was simply an exertion of authority. The Government of the day said, as it were, "Look, we have a problem here. We have decided to cut the Gordian knot by roughly halving the representation of Ireland in the House of Commons. Now shut up about it if you want to get the legislation through at all."
That is how it got through in 1912, because the Liberal Government of the day dared not not pass it. They had no choice but to pass that legislation, and to pass it again in 1913 and to pass it again in 1914. Then, what happened in 1920 was not that the matter was rethought but that there was a sort of judgment of Solomon—it was a judgment that Solomon would have performed if he had had four mothers to deal with and not two—of dividing into three-quarters and one-quarter, and giving the one-quarter of the reduced representation to Northern Ireland.
But everyone knew, or they knew by 1922, that there was nothing stable in that absurd device. They knew that it must result in one of two consequences, which were exemplified in the two parts of Ireland. It must either be the prelude to

effective political separation, which was what happened in the South of Ireland, or else it would be so worked that despite that being the implication of such a form of devolution, the power would be exercised in Northern Ireland in a way which would prevent that deduction being in practice drawn.
The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), describing, in eloquent tones, what would be the reduced condition of Welsh Members in the House of Commons if this legislation passed, said that they would be parliamentary pygmies. It was to the status of parliamentary pygmies that the representatives of Northern Ireland in the House of Commons were reduced—greatly to the disadvantage of that Province and greatly to the disadvantage of the House of Commons when the House of Commons at last had to address itself to the Government of Northern Ireland—by the impossible but enforced compromise of 1912 and 1922.
Therefore, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I say, as we have said from the beginning of these debates on devolution in Scotland and Wales, that this is an irremediable contradiction. We cannot go down this road without entering upon an infinite vista of instability and further discontent and change. The time to stop is now. Let us, therefore, after drawing instruction from the debate upon the new clause so ably moved by the hon. Member for Pembroke, leave it for what it is, a blackboard diagram, and then proceed, not in the referendum but before that, for we are the legislature, the House of Commons, to throw out the Bill.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: It is right that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) should explain in this debate the experience of Northern Ireland regarding the whole issue of devolution, because it has a great bearing on our discussions and on the likely effects that the future will hold for Wales and Scotland.
As the right hon. Member said, the Bill setting up Stormont led to Northern Ireland being under-represented vis-à-vis the rest of Britain. Of course, at that time the fact that we had Stormont led to a situation in which we did not have a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland sitting around the Cabinet table. It is interesting to note that the decision taken


to suspend Stormont has led to the setting up of a Speaker's Conference. That Speaker's Conference, which has made its recommendations only in the last few days, has recommended an increase in the representation for Northern Ireland. The question whether there is a separate Assembly in Northern Ireland seems to have some sort of bearing on the representation of Northern Ireland in the House of Commons.
Again, what is significant is that sitting at the Cabinet table at present we have a Secretary of State for Wales dealing with Welsh affairs and a Secretary of State for Scotland dealing with Scottish affairs, and now we have a Secretary of State dealing with Northern Irish affairs. The people of Northern Ireland now have in the British Cabinet a representative dealing directly with Northern Irish affairs.
We do not know what the future holds in regard to the relationship between the House of Commons and Northern Ireland. However, the Speaker's Conference has said that irrespective of whether we get a devolved Assembly, the increased representation is, presumably, to be maintained. But when the Kilbrandon Commission made its recommendations on the whole constitution and recommended that an Assembly be set up in Wales and Scotland, it referred to the fact that there was over-representation in the House of Commons of Wales and Scotland. We have heard mention of the figures. Scotland is overrepresented by 12 Members and Wales is over-represented by five Members. One can presume that it is the thinking that the figure of 36 Members now representing Wales in the House of Commons could well be reduced to 31 Members.
That is why, although I shall not be voting for the new clause, I think that the Opposition are fully justified in raising this issue. Under the guillotine procedure, we might not have got around to realising that, when we are talking about what is being done for Wales by creating an Assembly, there is a danger that we look at one side of the balance sheet and say "We are creating a new Assembly and we are giving something to Wales. Wales is now having something that it has never had previously." However, it is important in this Committee

stage and it is certainly incumbent upon us in the referendum campaign, to put before the people of Wales a realisation of what it will cost them if the Assembly is established. The question of the number of representatives that will in future represent the people of Wales in the House of Commons will obviously be affected if an Assembly is to be set up in Cardiff.
Normally, one puts questions during debates on a Bill and has one's answers by the end of the debates. With this Bill, however, as with the Scotland Bill, the longer the Committee stage has gone on, the more questions have been raised in my mind. One justification at least for the guillotine is that without it countless more questions would have remained unanswered.
For example, on the Scotland and Wales Bill, I asked what would happen to the Welsh Office. We do not know what powers will be transferred to it, as well as from it. What will happen to the Secretary of State for Wales? I have just quoted the Northern Ireland experience. When Stormont existed, there was no Secretary of State; when it was done away with, we created a Secretary of State. Are we to presume that Assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff will lead to the abolition of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales? If they remain, will they have places in the Cabinet? These questions should be answered before we go any further.

Mr. Dalyell: Like me, my hon. Friend has heard some of the debate in another place. Has he not been struck by the number of times that Government spokesmen—not least the Lord Chancellor—have been forced, when there is no guillotine, to say that they will come back with some reply on Report because they cannot answer it at that stage? On the other hand, because of the guillotine, we in this place cannot explore all the manholes.

Mr. Evans: As I said at our last meeting, they are looking at these matters through a microscope, while we are using a telescope.

Mr. William Hamilton: And the wrong end of a telescope.

Mr. Evans: I take that point, too. We have not examined the clauses in detail. We have lost our function to debate the


real issues affecting the people of Wales so that they know the full implications of this measure. They should know that they are not being given something on a plate but are being presented with a bill of which they do not have the full details.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has sought to cast doubt on the future of the Secretary of State's role and to compare it with the situation in Northern Ireland. He has missed out one point. When it existed, Stormont was a legislative Assembly. The Welsh Assembly will be executive. When it was proposed to set up a Northern Ireland Assembly, there was no suggestion that the office of Secretary of State should disappear because the Assembly was to be executive. Such an Assembly, therefore, can exist alongside a Secretary of State.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman makes his point. I am not saying that there is a direct comparison with Northern Ireland, but if he is saying that a legislative Assembly would mean no Secretary of State, I do not know whether the people of Scotland have been told that. Their Assembly is to be legislative. Will the Secretary of State for Scotland be abolished while the Secretary of State for Wales carries on? I can imagine the reaction in Scotland. That shows the difficulty.
We also need a categorical definition of the role of the Member of Parliament at Westminster. Certain functions and powers are to be devolved. Do the people of Wales know that, with the creation of the Assembly, certain matters of education, housing, social services and so on, which used to be raised by their Members here, will be raised in Cardiff instead? The role of an MP will be greatly changed, with an inevitable effect on the number of Welsh Members. If 36 Members deal with a whole range of issues and then half those issues are to be made the sole province of 80 Assemblymen in Cardiff, surely the argument can be taken one stage further. Not only will there be an Assembly, but its members will carry out a different function from that of their counterparts in England.
Nor should we forget the West Lothian question—what we know in these debates as the West Glamorgan question. Presumably Welsh Members will be allowed

to ask questions affecting English constituencies but not affecting their own constituents. This will create more contradictions. It will be a divisive rather than a unifying influence for the people of Wales, England and Scotland.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman spoke about raising issues in this House. When did we last have a debate on the social services in Wales in this House?

Mr. Evans: We have debates here on social services in Britain. We had one last Thursday.

Mr. William Hamilton: And the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) was not here.

Mr. Evans: Hon. Members have equal rights in this Assembly.

Mr. Thomas: That debate was not on social services in Wales.

Mr. Evans: When we talk about social services, we mean those of Britain. Does the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) suggest that we should have different pensions in Wales? That is a social service.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that only last week we had a full day's debate on the National Health Service, which includes Wales, and that not for one minute was any member of Plaid Cymru present?

Mr. Evans: One should be a little sympathetic.

Mr. Hamilton: Why?

Mr. Evans: They had got into hopeless confusion the night before and had to have a meeting to assess the difficulties. After claiming to be the great champions of the Wales Bill, they had been the architects of the defeat of a major clause. We should say, "Physician, heal thyself."

Mr. Thomas: I was here for both opening speeches on that occasion.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman says that he was here. He could have gone further and added that he could have spoken in the debate on the National Health Service in Britain. That is the important point.
What is to be the future role of the Assemblies? When Stormont was in existence, hon. Members in this House could tell Northern Ireland Members "You can raise these matters in Stormont, because they have been devolved to that Assembly". Will a similar cry be raised by English Members in the House of Commons if Assemblies are set up in Cardiff and Edinburgh?
I do not expect to carry with me in my argument the hon. Member for Merioneth, who believes in independence for Wales and wants to break up the United Kingdom.

Mr. Thomas: No.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman denies that, but he knows that his party takes that view. It is no use talking about interdependence; he and his party want political and economic separation for the people of Wales.

Mr. Thomas: No.

Mr. Evans: If he wants that, there will flow from the situation a separate Parliament in Cardiff which will have full powers. But that is not what the people of Wales want. In fairness to the Government, that is not what they want, either. We know that Clause 1 was deleted, but we also know that the whole purpose of the Bill was expressed in that provision originally in order to unite the people of these islands. The sole purpose of the Government has been aimed at creating that Assembly as a method of unifying the people of these islands. I believe that the Government are wrong. I believe that there are dangers in that view and that numerous questions must be asked.
We should be turning our minds to certain important matters. We know that the Scotland Bill is making some progress in the other place, but what will happen if this Bill does not receive Royal Assent? We should seriously consider that possibility. It is no use the nationalist Members saying that we have obstructed the Bill, because it was they who voted against the provision dealing with the commencement of the Bill. They were very obstructive on Thursday and we shall now have to find more time.

Mr. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Evans: I cannot keep giving way. The hon. Gentleman must make his own speech.
The nationalists are now saying that they will vote against Third Reading. That is what the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said. I know that the hon. Member for Merioneth disagrees with that view and I know that the two hon. Gentlemen have their differences. Since certain members of Plaid Cymru say that they will vote against Third Reading whereas others disagree, we do not know what is their attitude.
We must turn our minds to one other matter. I find that there is no enthusiasm for this Bill in the Labour and trade union movement, a point clearly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). We must make Labour supporters in Wales consider whether they are prepared to have the luxury of an Assembly in Cardiff while at the same time denying opportunities to the people of Wales—and, indeed, the people of Scotland in that context—to play a part in electing a majority Labour Government in the years ahead. I am not as pessimistic as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool. I believe that, even if the Asesmblies are set up, we can have a Labour Government, but I believe that it will weaken our chances. That matter should be put to the people.
We must examine what will happen if these proposals are given Royal Assent and are then put to the people. I believe that there are still one or two items in the Government proposals that need to be examined. We must consider some machinery for the nominated bodies. I do not believe that we should create a full-time Assembly of 80 people and at the same time maintain the existing machinery of government and add to it to deal with the problem. Nevertheless, that problem needs to be thoroughly examined.
I believe that a Speaker's Conference on this matter should be given different terms of reference which will enable it to examine a method of consultation in Wales as a result of which there may emerge a body which will bring together Members of Parliament as well as representatives of district and county councils. They could examine lists submitted by the Secretary of State to fill the various nominated positions. That would ensure a


body of elected people who would then meet the wishes of the people in seeing that it was not a decision merely of the Welsh Office, but a decision by a body representing district and county authorities. That is a constructive alternative, which we should examine in the coming years.
If an Assembly is created in Wales there will be a major reconstruction of Welsh local government. That will happen yet again. We have already gone through a traumatic experience in Wales with the reorganisation of local government. The people certainly do not want the whole of local government in Wales to be put back into the melting pot so soon after the earlier upheaval. If my suggestion were accepted, local government could be left alone. One could have the eight counties and 36 district councils, and their representatives could meet together with Members of Parliament. We could do away with the Welsh Grand Committee and those issues could be debated with representatives from districts and counties.
I do not wish to take up any more time. I believe that the Opposition are fully justified in raising this matter, but I shall not be supporting their clause because it will mean that, since there is to be a referendum, there will be a threat which is apparent to the people of Wales. They will see that Welsh membership in the House of Commons will be reduced in the years ahead. I think that we must cross that bridge when we come to it.

Mr. Pym: It would be fair to say that the hon. Gentleman is assuming that if such a conference were called it would reach the conclusion that fewer Members of Parliament for Wales would result. Our new clause does not prejudge any conclusion, but the hon. Gentleman obviously regards it as inevitable that that would happen. That means that in his opinion, if this Bill ever were to become an Act—an unhappy prospect—that situation would arise. It is for precisely that reason that we, the hon. Gentleman and many others are fighting this Bill. Am I not right in thinking that that is what he is saying?

Mr. Evans: If the right hon. Gentleman recalls my earlier remarks, he will

know that that is what I said. I believe that that is an inevitable consequence.
I do not ask the Government to give us any assurances that there will be no such reduction in numbers; they cannot do so. Nobody in this House can give assurances about what will happen in the future, but I believe that if we create Assemblies in Scotland and Wales a demand will be created. We must remember that people are appointed to the Speaker's Conference; they are there representing not their parties but the House of Commons. The decisions taken in that conference are taken on cross-party lines. In other words, they vote on issues as they stand.
What will happen if we create a Speaker's Conference to examine the representation of the Welsh people in this House? We all know that the Speaker's Conference on Northern Ireland was bound to come to the view that increased representation in this House was required for the people of Northern Ireland. One has only to look at the figures to draw that conclusion. In the same way, if we created Assemblies in Wales and Scotland there would inevitably flow a demand for a reduction in numbers. I believe that would be a backward step. I believe that the political logic of a Speaker's Conference may be directed to that conclusion, but I believe that would be another step which could disunite the people of Wales, Scotland and England.
Although I resist the clause, I emphasise that the Opposition are fully justified in raising this issue, because it is important that the people of Wales should know what it involves when it is time for them to reach a decision.

Sir David Renton: We are discussing an issue which is fundamental to the whole Bill. If I may say so, the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) made a characteristically candid and constructive contribution to the discussion. I was interested to hear him say, in effect, that it might be a good thing if the Bill were withdrawn and we had some kind of consultative Assembly in Wales without powers of the kind that the Welsh Assembly is to have under this Bill but with the Secretary of State retaining his powers and being answerable in the House.
I was interested in that suggestion, because I was one of the three members of the Kilbrandon Commission who opted for just such an Assembly—and directly elected, too. One of the many advantages of that was that we should then be able to duck this awkward issue of Welsh representation in the House of Commons.
The Government have introduced what I call a pretty over-developed measure of devolution, and it is a measure of devolution on which the issue ought not to be ducked. But the Government have ducked it. I think that they were wrong to duck it altogether and to pretend that it did not exist, giving no indication how they would deal with it when eventually—if by mischance it ever happens—the Bill is implemented.
But, having criticised the Government to that extent, I think that they were justified in not writing into the Bill what the future representation of Wales should be. That question would involve an agonising reappraisal if ever the Bill came into force—such an agonising reappraisal that, if I were in the Government's shoes, I should ask myself three questions.
First, will the Bill ever reach the statute book? Obviously, if it does not, the issue will not arise. Second, will the Bill be killed by a General Election before it receives Royal Assent? Again, the issue will not arise.
Third, let us assume that in a General Election all the pro-devolution candidates do badly and all the anti-devolution candidates do well in Wales. Would the Government then be justified in going ahead with implementation of the Act or, indeed, with the referendum? It would then be cheaper, quicker and simpler to introduce a three-clause Bill repealing what had become the Act than to have a referendum, and, in the circumstances, perhaps fully justified.
However, let us assume a fourth event; the referendum is held and not enough people support it. The Bill, or the Act, as it will be, will then become a dead letter.
There could be all those circumstances in which the agonising reappraisal would not arise. I see this as one of the rare occasions giving justification for the old

adage "Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you". Generally, that is a bad excuse for doing nothing, but in my opinion this is an occasion when it is all right.
However, while hoping for the best, hoping that one of the circumstances which I have described will avoid the need for the agonising reappraisal, we should prepare for the worst with the minimum of embarrassment. In my view, this innocuous option proposed in the new clause put to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) is about as good a way as could be found of raising the issue and of asking Parliament to give it its blessing. No other way is being put forward. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has described this as "an irremediable contradiction" which no kind of device could overcome. But we have to prepare for the worst while hoping for the best, and I think that there is a justification for the idea of a Speaker's Conference.
In company with the right hon. Member for Down, South, I served recently on the Speaker's Conference on Northern Ireland representation. Naturally, it was not free from some controversy, but a clear consensus emerged both on the principles to be applied and on the factual decision which was reached.
6.45 p.m.
I therefore support the new clause. Since it has been deployed so clearly and so well by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and his hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), I do not need to go over the West Lothian argument again, but I wish briefly to add one or two points.

Mr. Dalyell: May we just be clear? The right hon. and learned Gentleman wants a Speaker's Conference, but to do precisely what?—to come up with some form of devolution, or to say that it is impossible to have it? What is the object of the Speaker's Conference?

Sir D. Renton: Let me repeat what I said just now. It is a matter of preparing for the worst. In the event—the unlikely event, I hope—of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and its being approved in the referendum, the Government of the day will have to face arguments of the kind which the hon. Member for Aberdare has been adducing, that we really cannot have


this strange difference with Welsh Members who are precluded from having the kind of say which they would like to exercise in all Welsh affairs but being able to have a say, to vote, to ask Questions, and so on, on English affairs of an equivalent kind.
That is a ridiculous state of affairs. It would turn the House of Commons into a farcical proceeding, and that is the sort of situation which has to be avoided. What I should expect the Speaker's Conference to go into is, first and foremost, the question of the extent of intervention by Welsh Members. In my opinion, that is the first point. Whether my hon. Friends have that in mind in putting down the new clause, I am not quite certain.
That point having been settled, there then arises the agonising reappraisal, as I call it, of the number of Welsh Members. In a sense, this is a matter which the Kilbrandon Commission partly ducked. Kilbrandon certainly did not go into detail on it. Having said that if Scotland and Wales had their own legislative Assemblies, there would have to be a reduction of their representation in the House of Commons, the Kilbrandon Commission went on to say, in paragraph 815:
the amount of this reduction would be a matter for discussion in the light of the extent of devolution, and it is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rule.
One thing which the Speaker's Conference would have to do is to follow up that phrase in the Kilbrandon Report. This is putting down the marker, and the Speaker's Conference would have to take the matter up from there.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that in the passage from which he has quoted the Kilbrandon Commission was specifically concerning itself with legislative devolution, and when, in paragraph 905, it talked about administrative devolution, it ended by saying:
This question
the question of representation—
does not arise under exeutive devolution, since Parliament would continue to legislate for all regions"?
I merely make the point that Kilbrandon was pretty explicit in relation to executive devolution.

Sir D. Renton: Ever since the Kilbrandon Report was published it is a difficulty that has bedevilled matters that the majority on the Commission wrote the main terms of the report. Those of us who had reservations about the powers of the Assemblies in Scotland and Wales were merely recorded as having those reservations, but we did not attempt to rewrite the report.
My position—I hoped that it was reasonably clear from the reservations that I made—was that if we have a consultative Assembly we could duck the issue of representation. But if we have a legislative Assembly or an Assembly with executive devolution—that, after all, is not far short, in terms of powers, from the legislative solution, especially as presented in the Bill, with the Welsh Assembly's powers over subordinate legislation—we cannot avoid the West Lothian situation arising. Therefore, we have to face the inevitability that, when the Assembly has been established and Welsh Members elected to the House of Commons, there will be a difficulty over the duality.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that the Kilbrandon Commission majority was explicit in its recommendation, which was that the scheme should be applied in a more or less uniform way throughout Great Britain. It was against that background that the majority of Kilbrandon Commission made the recommendation to which the Minister has recently referred, that there should be no reduction in the case of administrative devolution. That is in a wholly different situation.

Sir D. Renton: I am exceedingly grateful to my hon. Friend. What he has said reinforces the case that I was attempting to put. That clarifies the position.
In order to clarify the position further and put the record straight—there has been some confusion over this—I should say that the members of the Kilbrandon Commission all suggested that if electorates were to be of the same average throughout the United Kingdom, Wales would have 31 members instead of 36. In the past I had a good deal to do with the legislation on parliamentary boundaries and parliamentary boundary commissions, and I am sure that I carry the Committee with me when I say that I hope that


the whole of the United Kingdom will never become "average". If so, there will be some pretty impossible constituencies.
The constituency that I represent is impossible enough. There are 93,000 electors, spread over 80 villages and five towns. I would like that to be averaged, because that would create an improvement for me. But it should be better than averaged. My constituency should be one that has far fewer electors but in which the number of electors should be related to the very large geographical area.
We should regard the statement of the Kilbrandon Commission about average constituencies merely as a yardstick that was put forward to show a comparison between the Welsh constituencies and and the English constituencies. The latest figures that I have show that at present—I am prepared to leave it as it is, so long as the Bill does not become law—the average size of Welsh constituencies is only 57,000 people. Thas compares with 66,000 in England. However, England has some very concentrated urban areas, and it is therefore right that the average should be greater in England.
So long as we do not have devolution on the lines proposed in the Bill we need not worry about the Welsh representation, but if the Bill is implemented after a referendum we cannot avoid doing something about it. If and when such an unhappy circumstance arises the holding of a Speaker's Conference will be inevitable.

Mr. Dalyell: When I listen to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Sir D. Renton), as I have done over the last 42 days, I often reflect that the Kilbrandon Report, in its own words, depended on good will. It is surprising that Lord Kilbrandon is now to head a controversial "Yes" campaign, having said in his report that it all depends on good will. Whatever side of the argument one takes, one realises that this is a fiercely contested issue. There has been demonstrated, unfortunately, a great absence of good will. Lord Kilbrandon should think hard about his position, having, as chairman of the Commission, put forward the proposition on the basis of good will.
I should like to refer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The Committee will be relieved to know that I shall not make a long speech on the so-called West Lothian question. That would be an impertinence after all that I have said. However, there is an Irish dimension. I refer to this only because of the Prime Minister's answer on the matter. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his statement on the Irish seats, I asked in general terms how long a situation could endure in which 71 Scots Members of Parliament—and, indeed, the Welsh Members—could vote on matters in relation to Derry but not Dundee, and in relation to Belfast but not Bathgate. My right hon. Friend is a skilful, consummate, quick and marvellous parliamentary performer. In the way in which I phrased the question, it was easy for him to reply "Almost indefinitely" in a broad tone. Everybody laughed. I do not complain of that.
However, the question remains. Perhaps I should have asked whether the Prime Minister was satisfied, in a sense of fairness, with the justice of the idea that this should last. That question may be asked in this way: how long can a situation endure in which Members of Parliament for Cardiff can vote on the most delicate issue of politics in Coleraine, but not in Cardiff, or a Member for Ebbw Vale can vote on the most gut issues in relation to Enniskillen but not in relation to Ebbw Vale?
The question applies as much to Northern Ireland as to Wales. Although The Scotsman said that my right hon. Friend gave a crushing reply, that is not exactly how, in the cold light of day, these matters might be interpreted.
The analysis of the right hon. Member for Down, South and of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) and the statement of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) make it superfluous for me to make a long contribution, though even on day 42 I congratulate the hon. Member for Pembroke on introducing a relatively new—at least, I have not tumbled to it before—aspect to the debates.
I refer to the difficulty of framing future legislation to take account of the variations between Scottish needs and the needs of Wales. This will certainly put


extra pressure on parliamentary draftsmen. It is difficult to quantify the amount of extra pressure, but this is a substantial point.
7.0 p.m.
Even at this stage, we do not have a clear picture of what Assemblymen in the Coal Exchange or the High School will do. Like some of my hon. Friends, I have spent many hours at the Bar of another place, and last night, during discussion of a seemingly innocuous amendment moved by Lord Gray, I heard the Government spokesman, Lord Kirkhill, say that the Assemblies could set up committees on anything they pleased. My noble Friend went on for about half an hour, and he was repeatedly challenged on the question whether he really meant that the Assemblies could set up committees on foreign affairs, defence, employment and other non-devolved subjects.
Lord Wilson of Langside asked whether a specific question of defence or some aspect of foreign policy on a United Kingdom basis could be discussed. Lord Kirkhill replied:
As I read the Bill, such a discussion is not debarred to the Assemblymen if somebody chooses to raise the issue and there is a majority view that the matter be discussed."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24th April 1978; Vol. 390, c. 1567.]
That may be the legal position. I am not saying that Lord Kirkhill was wrong. Presumably the Scottish Assembly can discuss anything it likes. However, when committees are set up on particular subjects, such as defence, they raise the expectation that they can do something. The setting up of any Assembly committee will involve the expenditure of some public money, though I do not say that it will be very much.
I am not exaggerating this matter. I hope that the House will agree that I have never seized just any stick with which to try to argue my case. It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh at the suggestion that the Assembly will set up a defence committee, but I did not make that suggestion. I had not tumbled to it, because I did not believe that it was possible. It was put forward by a Government spokesman in reply to an amendment to a clause that was not properly discussed in this House. That shows again the dangers involved in our not discussing every clause.

Mr. John Smith: Whose fault is that?

Mr. Dalyell: Not entirely mine, though I shall not be drawn into that argument.
I warn the Minister of State that if committees on these sort of devolved subjects can be set up, the Assembly's approach will naturally be to go direct to Ministers, bypassing the House and in some cases going straight to Downing Street.
We have not yet discovered precisely what are to be the functions and roles of Assemblymen. If we are discussing numbers, we must be clear on their roles. If they are to set up seriuos foreign affairs and defence committees—the Scottish Assembly will certainly want to discuss fisheries policy and other EEC policies—they will go straight to the British Government.

Sir Raymond Gower: I accept that the Assemblies could set up these committees. In many cases, local authorities can set up such committees. However, the Assemblies would not have the power to deal with half the subjects that the hon. Gentleman has referred to and it would be foolish for an Assembly to waste time setting up committees on matters with which it did not have the power to deal.

Mr. Dalyell: That may be so. That is why I have been careful in what I have said. The Assemblies would have no power at first, but that would not stop the committees being set up, and it is unlikely that a Scottish Assembly would not set up a fisheries policy committee and an EEC committee.

Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend knows that sea fishing and agriculture are not devolved subjects; they remain the responsibility of the British Government. There would be little point in an Assembly concerning itself with such subjects.

Mr. Dalyell: All I can say to the Minister is "You tell that to the Assembly". The Assemblymen will not take it. They will see the Assembly as the Scottish Parliament. It is being paraded as the Scottish Parliament and if the hon. Members for Clackmannan and East Stirling-shire (Mr. Reid) and Galloway (Mr. Thompson) are Members of the Assembly, it is inconceivable that they would not form such committees. A fisheries committee of the Assembly would want


to do things for the Scottish corner which might be to the disadvantage of other areas.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Has it come to my hon. Friend's ears that during his speech Ministers have repeatedly been saying that the Assembly would have no power in these areas and therefore would not concern itself with them? Does he accept that the defiinitions of power handed down to a subordinate Assembly do not necessarily define the aspirations of the Assembly? If that were the case, we would never talk about EEC affairs in this House, because of the limitation of our power in that respect.
In the event of Assemblymen feeling that external affairs had a direct effect upon the conduct of matters in their constituencies and on the interests of their consituents, they would, by investigation or analysis, even without the exercise of power and only with the exercise of opinion, want to become directly involved and they would consequently raise expectations and challenge the interpretation of central Government on these affairs to the possible discomfort of Ministers.

Mr. Dalyell: Furthermore, they might be expected to have opinions on these subjects. People might ask why, if the Assemblymen did not have opinions, were they drawing their salaries. This all comes back, even after 42 days, to a fundamental issue of confusion.

Sir David Renton: We always listen to the hon. Gentleman with interest. He said that he wanted to make a brief speech and, although I do not wish him to do so, it may help him to shorten his speech if he refers to Clause 18(1) which provides that
Without prejudice to its powers to appoint other committees, the Assembly shall appoint committees in accordance with the following provisions of this section with functions relating to all the powers conferred on the Assembly by sections 10, 11 and 12 above and with such other functions (if any) as the Assembly may determine.
It looks as though the Assembly will be able to choose other functions to exercise.

Mr. Dalyell: I am not the man to give instant legal opinions. I shall look at that in Hansard. I promised to make a short speech. My condition for sitting down is that we have a speech from my hon.

Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on the subject.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: May I try to help the hon. Member further in his scenario of the international relations of these Assemblies? I draw his attention to Clause 29, which provides that
The Assembly shall not in the exercise of its functions conduct relations with any country outside the United Kingdom.
That seems entirely to answer the point. No Assembly can meet in Cardiff and discuss potential relations with Patagonia or anywhere else unless it has the power to do anything about it.

Mr. Dalyell: I suspect that if the hon. Member became a Member of the Welsh Assembly he would not feel himself inhibited in demanding that the Assembly, if need be, should have precisely the power to do this. I am not quoting some fanciful idea of mine but the official view of the Government spokesman in another place.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would not require a very ingenious member of Plaid Cymru to say that although Clause 29 prevents the conduct of relations with any country outside the United Kingdom it does not prevent an Assembly from making representations to other countries or to international bodies, sending delegations, and so on. Once that process starts, where does it end?

Mr. Dalyell: It is not good enough to say that local authorities do this. They do so, but within certain limits. The limits on the Lothian and Strathclyde Regions are there when they go to the Regional Development Fund and the Social Fund to get some kind of grant. This system operates within certain parameters. An Assembly, harnessed as it would seem to all sorts of national aspirations, is a totally different kettle of fish, especially when we would have some Members of the Assembly inevitably claiming that they would want, in Brussels, not only their Minister in the Council of Ministers but their own Commissioner on the Commission, as well as their own officials right down the Brussels hierarchy.
We are dealing with two different creatures when we talk about local authorities and the Assemblies. I ask my Front


Bench one question with regard to the statements made in the other House and the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence at Question Time today. Can my hon. Friend clear up the position of Assembly committees on non-devolved matters, since this is directly relevant to the new clause? This issue raises the whole question of the function and burden of work of Assemblymen and, theoretically at any rate, that should determine the number of Assemblymen.
I have finally to explain that, like the right hon. Member for Down, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare—this may be a tiny consolation to the Minister of State—I shall not be in the Opposition Lobby tonight because I do not believe in a Speaker's Conference. I said so at length on the Scotland Bill. I think that it is fudging the issue.

Sir Raymond Gower: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) initiated this fascinating debate in a most pertinent way when he described it as being for instructional purposes. I think that that was the phrase he used. A good deal of the discussion has been of a probing nature. He took the view that certain consequences, which he described, would almost certainly follow the enactment of this legislation. Certainly I would tend to agree with him that in the fullness of time, should this Bill be enacted, it is almost certain that at some time or other, a future Parliament here would be obliged by the very nature of things, as the pressure for devolution advances in Scotland and or Wales, to look at the arrangements for representation in this Parliament.
7.15 p.m.
This view seemed to be supported not only by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) but by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), although they looked at it from a different point of view.
Whereas my right hon. and learned Friend was concerned, as indeed many of us are, with the effect of this legislation upon the nature of the United Kingdom Parliament, the two hon. Members were also giving a great deal of attention

—I hope I do not overstate this—to the consequences for the Labour Party and for future Labour Governments, which is rather a different thing. They could see that it could be destructive of Labour power at Westminster in future if this sort of legislation were enacted.
There is a good deal of evidence to support that view. I am not so concerned about the future of particular parties. This kind of legislation is bound to have the effect that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke prophesied. On the other hand, I do not see that happening immediately. Some who have intervened in this debate regard it as certain that at an early date these changes would take place. For example, I would have thought there would be a big difference in the consequences in the case of Wales as opposed to Scotland. Obviously, if Scotland were given fairly important legislative powers in its Assembly, one would have thought that the consequences upon representation here would be more severe than those for Wales. I do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend would agree with that.

Sir David Renton: I do agree. I think that this is a matter of degree, as the Kilbrandon Commission pointed out.

Sir R. Gower: I would certainly have thought that the consequences for Scotland, with its legislative powers, would be much more severe than the consequence, in the first place, for a Welsh Assembly without those legislative powers. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). On the whole, I do not like the detailed prescription for a Speaker's Conference. That is one of the reasons why, in the case of the Scotland Bill, I did not support a similar proposal. I shall not support this one, either.
I do not think that this is intended to be an important point. I hope that it is brought forward for instructional purposes. I hope that it impresses on all hon. Members the consequences of this legislation. It is not possible to have a situation in which these Assemblies, particularly in Wales, will have been operating for a long time, with wide devolved powers, and with the representatives of the respective countries in this Parliament continuing to enjoy the same position as


they do today. On the whole, this debate has afforded us a valuable opportunity of considering all these consequences. I hope that the Government have considered them, too. They may have valid arguments for not taking immediate steps to change the constitutional arrangements here. I would like to hear a Government spokesman say that, in the long run, devolution of this nature must affect the position here. No Government spokesman has gone as far as that, as I understand it. It is unreal to imagine that there can be no effect at all.
I am inclined to feel that the effect would come sooner than the Government are prepared to admit, although not as soon as some have suggested. I believe that these consequences would occur irrespective of whether this clause were in the Bill.
If we have this kind of devolution, irrespective of any powers in the legislation, ultimately, a Speaker's Conference would be bound to consider this issue. It could not avoid the problem. Those of us who have had the honour of taking part in a Speaker's Conference, as I have on two occasions, will recall that the conferences were convened by Mr. Speaker himself.
The new clause states that the Speaker's Conference would have
the function of considering and making recommendations to the House of Commons relating to the appropriate number of Members of the House representing Welsh constituencies after the enactment of this Act.
All Speaker's Conferenecs have the duty of considering and making recommendations as to the appropriate number of Members. The only difference is that here we have the addition of the words
after the enactment of this Act.
Presumably that means that the Speaker's Conference will consider the position in the light of the consequences of the enactment of the Act.
At all times any such conference has to consider what is the apropriate representation of all parts of the United Kingdom in this Parliament, and the very passing of the Act would alter the basis on which it would establish its judgment.
I do not consider the passing of the clause tonight as being of any great importance, but the debate that we have had

on it has been of tremendous importance. I hope that it will influence the thinking of hon. Members in all parts of the House, and particularly the thinking of Ministers, who have been putting their heads in the sand over this issue.

Mr. Kinnock: The discussion of the general areas of competence of the Assembly and the matters that it might discuss was of interest earlier in the debate. I think that it is worth pursuing, since it is of direct relevance to the functions that would be exercised by an Assembly and the way in which those functions would later be viewed by the House of Commons, eventually through a Speaker's Conference, such a conference obviously taking into account the powers that an Assembly exercised or the aspirations that it had, and eventually calculating the kind of representations that Wales should have in the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), in an intervention, drew our attention to the wording of Clause 29, which states that
The Assembly shall not in the exercise of its functions conduct relations with any country outside the United Kingdom.
As a consequence of that, the interpretation has been that the Assembly must not, among other non-devolved matters, discuss or express a view upon or lay down motions upon or set up committees about matters which are not devolved precisely in the Bill.
It seems to me that it is impossible to assume and totally insupportable to think, that any national body elected by ballot of the people of a country—and therefore occupying the position of and endowed with the authority—albeit superficial, of being the voice of the nation—should not seek to exercise that authority in its attitudes expressed towards and conduct with other bodies and subjects that go beyond those which are rather starchily laid down in the Bill.
It may well be that in the exercise of its functions the Welsh Assembly cannot conduct relations with any country outside the United Kingdom, but its expression of opinion may be in direct transgression of the policies of Whitehall and Westminster, which may or may not be under the domination of my hon. Friends or of the Conservative Party. I do not think that there is anything particularly


wrong with this. I think that any radically expressed opinion which exhorts support for human rights, or criticises incompetent or imperialistic foreign policies, or articulates the feelings of people about the way in which foreign affairs are conducted, is to be encouraged.
It would be totally inconsistent of me to advocate the support of various organisations to which I belong and then to seek to deny the exercise of that function by a nationally elected body in my own country which would, I hope, on many issues utter opinions that were concurrent with mine. I have in mind anything from, say, South Africa to Ethiopia, and from human rights in the Soviet Union to the attitude of the United States of America to the conduct of policies in South-East Asia.
I recall the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) sharing my opinion in an interjection—albeit from a seated position—when he asked what would be wrong with the Assembly doing that sort of thing. From my point of view, there would be nothing wrong morally—or, indeed, politically—with the Assembly doing that. Indeed, it would probably be more useful to me politically than to the hon. Gentleman. But the fact is that, if we pass the Bill, it would be illegal. That is the problem.
Indeed, it is a good definition of the whole nature of devolution that the centralised Government have chosen in their wisdom condescendingly to hand down certain powers and then draw a fence round those powers, and to deny by law those matters which are within the legal competence of the Assembly.
It is impossible to stultify the opinions, the voices and the brains of politically motivated people, who have a strong commitment to political purpose and who embrace the world in their causes. We cannot elect them to a national and responsible body and then expect them to shut up on matters which affect them, as politically motivated people—the condition of the people of Wales, their freedom, their economy and their society—as directly as they affect the rest of Britain.
What I am saying, as a background to the discussion of the clause, is that, as the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) said, whether we have a Speaker's

Conference or not, the representation of Wales in this House will eventually have to be considered not only against the background of matters devolved under the Bill but against the background of the reality of the expression of opinion made by the Assembly, and the apparent seeking of power which it will undertake as an inevitable consequence of being endowed with elective responsibility and elective authority. That is an authority and a responsibility which, for an Assembly with the status of the Welsh Assembly—or, indeed, the status of the Scottish Assembly—it is not possible to restrain.
It is possible, for instance, to restrain or limit the authority and aspiration of a county council or of a borough council, because its responsibility, by definition, is to a parochialised area, a sub-division of an economy or a local government area. That is the only responsibility that it cares to exert and the only responsibility that it exerts in practice. It does not stop a council having opinions about other matters, but it accepts the limitation of their responsibility and authority. Such disciplines do not exert themselves upon a national Assembly. I do not think that that is a bad thing, but it is something to which the Committee should pay attention.

Mr. Alec Jones: My hon. Friend suggests that local authorities accept this sort of limitation of the area in which they can operate, but that is not quite true. I know that my hon. Friend is aware that within the last two or three weeks the Mid-Glamorgan County Council called and held a very successful all-Wales conference on unemployment. I should have thought that we ought to encourage that sort of thing. I do not think that my hon. Friend can rightly say that local authorities accept a narrow boundary, either geographically or in terms of subject matter.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Kinnock: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I was about to draw attention to an even wider exercise of opinion, admittedly in days of yore. I am thinking of the Tredegar Urban District Council, of late and lamented memory. For instance, in the 1930s it frequently used to pass resolutions to send telegrams to Comrade Stalin—as it always addressed him—criticising his


particular attitude over this or that, or exhorting him to make a stronger commitment to the cause of the republic in Spain. Certainly, the imagination of local and county councillors goes well beyond the cramped and limited powers which they have been awarded by the statutes of this House. Their responsibilities go beyond that. They also understand the value of the co-ordination of opinion in influencing Government and the co-ordination of policy in implmenting statutes which would be of benefit to a wider area.
I understand all that, but no one has ever passed a law with regard to local authorities saying that they shall not do this or that, or that in the exercise of their functions they shall not convene national conferences. Yet we are in the process of passing a law in that regard on a national Assembly.
Perhaps I can put it in proportion. A county council—with my full support and the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones)—may wish to convene an all-Wales conference for the purpose of discussing a scourge upon the whole country—unemployment—and see that as the fulfilment of its duty to its own people who share a future and a problem with the rest of Wales. That would be accepted by my hon. Friend and myself as not only legitimate but entirely supportable and laudable. But if we change the scale a little into a situation in which an Assembly might see a community of problem and a community of resolution with other countries, it might wish to exercise its functions along those lines. But under this Act it is specifically excluded from doing so.

Sir Raymond Gower: Cannot the hon. Gentleman envisage a situation in which a United Kingdom Government could enter into a treaty with Poland, as a result of which there would be an importation of coal from Poland? A Welsh Assembly might well pass a resolution condemning that, but it would not have power to upset that treaty or to interfere with the making of such a treaty.

Mr. Kinnock: I understand that. In the context of this new clause, what is even more important is that not only will the Welsh Assembly not have the power to enforce its condemnation of the import-
ation of Polish coal—or anyone else's coal—but, as a consequence of the inevitable result of demarcating a different system of government and the reduction of political representation in this House that comes as a result of the passage of this Bill—should it survive the referendum—the people of Wales will have even less power than they do now to prevent or impede the importation of foreign coal.
At the very point at which an Assembly may wish to voice an opinion or exercise its power—this is in the nature of the condescending philosophy of devolution—by the very Act that gave the Assembly life and existence, its alleged freedom becomes a bondage. The alleged loudspeaker becomes a gag. The very thing which is intended to set the people free, or bring decisions a little nearer home, as the 1975 White Paper used to put it—it is now almost part of political archaelogy—may well—I think, in fact—be the cause of their losing even more power.
The hon. Member for Merioneth mentioned Patagonia. I realise that he has a particular relationship there. On closer examination I think he will find that far from it being a land free of torment, which the settler of Wales went to find. It is in the scale of reaction, if I may put it like that, a little to the right of South Africa. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not have any pride in the way in which events have transpired in Patagonia any more than I do.
But local authorities have twinning arrangements with towns. I think that Cardiff is twinned with Nantes. There is a street in Cardiff called Boulevarde de Nantes. Someone has crossed it out and in brilliant Welsh graffiti put "Boulevarde de £64,000", which is what it cost to turn it into a dual carriageway. Therefore, Wales might have twinning arrangements with Patagonia, Kurdistan, Quebec or the supreme Soviet of Uzbekistan sitting in Tashkent. If we should fall under Plaid Cymru domination in the Assembly, I am sure that the relationship would be a twinning relationship with whatever democratic Assembly Colonel Gadafi in Lybia has blessed himself with for the purposes of expediting exchanges of sheep and other materials, which were the basis of a magnificent trade agreement that we were promised by the


nationalists in Wales a couple of summers ago.
However, there is a serious point to be made about the new clause. It is a harbinger of an absolutely unavoidable consequence of the implementation of this Bill. I think that it becomes unavoidable in any case. What would make it a speedy prospect would be the unfortunate election of a Conservative Government. One of their first acts would be to suggest to Mr. Speaker that he sets up such a conference and that it can come to only one conclusion. Even in the more fortunate event of there not being a Conservative Government for many more decades—indeed, generations—still the demand would grow that because of the divisions of powers, the way in which Welsh Members of Parliament could exercise definitive power—indeed, deciding what the government should be for the whole of Britain—without this House being able to make important decisions about the conduct of day-to-day life in Wales, the consequence of all that would be inevitable demands for the reduction in representation in Wales.
This point has been repeatedly made from the outset. It would help us if we understood the various opinions on this matter. For instance, I understand that the Liberals in Wales view such a possibility with equanimity because they see the future of the United Kingdom as a federal structure. Consequently, they feel that a federal Parliament should eventually exist. Therefore, together with their proposals for proportional representation, the actual representation of Wales and Welsh interests in the federal Parliament would in any case be somewhat smaller, numerically, than it is in the non-federal Parliament—in the unitary Parliament that we have at present.
I understand that the Liberals approach with no qualms such a prospect as the implementation of New Clause No. 2, with its Speaker's Conference and its reduction of representation from the Principality to this House of Commons.
The Conservatives themselves would not be proposing such a new clause if they had any foreboding about the prospect of a Speaker's Conference recommending that representation from the Principality should be significantly reduced. Indeed, they would be totally

inconsistent if they were worried about that. If one looks at the way in which their seats are distributed in Wales, one sees that there are seats to which, even in bad years, they can expect to hang on, seats that they can expect to collect only in good to moderate years, and seats about which they have aspirations. I quite understand that the Conservatives would not anticipate—even with a reduction in the number of seats in this House of Commons—proportionately to lose their influence in Wales. I understand how the Conservatives, without any disloyalty to their Members who have seats in Wales and without jeopardising those seats, can propose New Clause No. 2.
The nationalists are in a different situation. Indeed, one might say that they are in many respects in a different galaxy and planetary system. They do not want a federal system. They do not want the total union that the Conservatives want, nor do they embrace the general attitudes of the Labour movement. They reject the Bill because they want to go much further. On the other hand, they do not accept the proposition put forward by myself and several of my hon. Friends that in trying to secure the maximum advantage for the people of Wales we have a vested interest in union, albeit in democratising the unelected tier of Government. That does not go far enough for the nationalists. It is in direct transgression of their interpretation of decentralisation or of independence or of whatever particular flag they are flying. One is never sure which flag they are flying.
My son told me last week that he saw a marvellous pirate film about Captain Henry Morgan, who was from Tredegar, but not an ancestor of mine. Captain Morgan's favourite ploy was to dress up his men as women and haul up a French or Spanish flag. By such use of camouflage he was able to sail alongside his intended victim, fling his enemies into the water and make himself a rich man. With regret, I must inform the Committee that he never returned any of those riches to Tredegar.
The nationalists have much the same approach to the question of devolution. At times they fly the skull and crossbones of independence and at other times the


union jack with the red dragon superimposed on it. It is the flag of devolution. It is difficult to assess their precise attitude. I believe that devolution inevitably will lead to a substantial reduction in Members.
I take on board the warning given by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). But we are not simply talking about proportionality on the basis of population. We are talking about proportionality on the basis of power. If the Welsh Assembly exercises substantial powers a full equation must be worked out, not only on the average size of the Welsh constituency but on what competence the Welsh Assembly has and what reduced proportion the House of Commons has in the government of Wales. The consequence of that equation is not the reduction of the number of Welsh Members of Parliament by five, but by substantially more.
That is because the equation of power plus proportionality does not equal a reduction of five. It equals a reduction of far more than that. I must leave it to a Speaker's Conference to guess what the appropriate figure might be.

Mr. Abse: While my hon. Friend is presenting this grim picture, may I draw to his attention a poll conducted by a local radio station in South-West Wales? This clearly shows that 53 per cent. of the population are against an Assembly and that 33 per cent. are in favour. It shows that in the Secretary of State's constituency, where he has failed signally to persuade his constituents, 54 per cent. are against and 27 per cent. in favour.
Perhaps it is right that my hon. Friend should speculate in this way. Happily, it seems that political sense in Wales is already making itself clearly felt.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Kinnock: I have never had any doubt about the political sense of Wales. The situation in Aberavon is significant. If one goes one constituency further east, to Neath, one finds that the findings of the poll are even more resounding. Even if one moves to Carmarthen, the seat of the Leader of Plaid Cymru, one finds a balanced situation. There is a 1 per cent. advantage for devolution. This is a seat which returns a Plaid Cymru Member.

The support is for a Labour policy and there are many "don't knows". There is confusion in such areas. Where there is clear representation on the issue the confusion is less.
In the event of a reduction in the number of Welsh Members in the House of Commons the nationalists would be significantly advantaged. If I were them I should vote for New Clause No. 2. I should be hoping that as a consequence of devolution the Conservatives or the Speaker's Conference would do the job of nationalism for me. Reducing the number of Welsh Members at Westminster would dilute or demote the importance of the Welsh voice. I am not talking about my job security or that of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards)—I hope that his security is in any case tenuous; I am talking about the general impression that Wales could make upon the decisions of Government in Westminster and Whitehall.
If I were a Welsh nationalist I should hope that a Speaker's Conference would cut a chunk—one great branch—off Welsh representation in this Assembly.
Then, I should be characterising that faithfully—there would be no exaggeration—as the worst and most despicable manifestation in history of overweening imperialistic centralism that had been waiting for centuries to take vengeance on the Welsh people by emasculating them. That would do a good job for nationalism, because it would sign and seal all the ideas that they have been promulgating about the contemptuous attitude in which Wales is held by those awful centralists in Westminster and Whitehall. A reduction of Members would be the most clear and tangible numerical manifestation of that disregard for Welsh interests.

Mr. Pym: I regret that the hon. Member did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards). That was a reasonable speech explaining the background to the New Clause. I am afraid that the hon. Member is wide of the mark on this aspect.

Mr. Kinnock: I understand. I received a summary from two of my hon. Friends of the speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke. I am sure that that summary was faithfully given. I am not pointing out the deficiencies in that argument; I am talking of the construction that can


and will be put upon the operation of this new clause by the enemies of both our parties in Wales.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: May I put the hon. Gentleman quickly and easily out of his misery, as I always like to do? We made our position clear earlier in the Committee deliberations, when we stated that while legislative power for Wales as well as England resided in the House of Commons we should oppose any reduction in the number of Welsh Members elected here, and while the block grant was allocated from the House of Commons to Wales we should equally strongly object to any reduction in the number of Welsh Members here. Our position on that is clear, and we shall be voting against the new clause.

Mr. Kinnock: It would be a very tortuous strategem, but a very wise one, for the hon. Gentleman and his party to support the new clause. I understand that, as long as superior legislative and financial power resides in the House of Commons and the Government produced by it, Plaid Cymru will object to reductions in the number of Members who come here from Wales, or to reductions in the block grant.
That would not prevent it from profitably exploiting a reduction of the number of Members, not only as a violation of the interests of Wales but as an outrageous confrontation with nationalist policy on the matter. It would not stop it saying "We told you so. Westminster has all along been waiting to take its proportional vengeance on the people of Wales. We can expect no mercy from a Whitehall and Westminster that, as their first act after giving us a measure of independence"—a phrase that is a favourite of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot)—"a measure of self-determination, delivers that self-determination in the form of reducing our number of Members directly elected to Westminster." To say that, one does not have to engage in political science fiction, exaggerate or use one's imagination. That would be the realistic position in the event of devolution.
I am not blaming the hon. Member for Pembroke or the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) for taking the course that they have as a consequence of the Bill. Even if the clause is not

passed tonight, we may see a certain convention of government in a future Government or a convention in a future House.
It follows as night follows day—or day follows night, according to one's attitude to the advisability and desirability of the new clause—that it is impossible for such a Bill or the Scotland Bill, of such substantial import to the constitutional future of the whole United Kingdom, to pass through the House of Commons without having implications for the House.
It is impossible for allocations of finance to be made under this Bill or the Scotland Bill for the whole of the future to pass through the House of Commons without having implications for the financial powers and competence of the House. It is impossible for a new constitution to be drawn up for the government of two substantial parts of the United Kingdom without being very important for the constitution of this place. It would not make sense. It would not be historically consistent. Indeed, it would not even be fair if such considerations did not arise.
Therefore, if I were a Conservative I would make no apologies—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not—or seek to hide the purpose behind the clause—I am sure that hon. Gentleman did not—because the two go together like bread and butter. They are inseparable. It is a delusion to believe, if anybody does, that the Bill could become law and be implemented, that an Assembly could come into being, without having these significant consequences for the House of Commons.
I give the Opposition some credit. Instead of going for the jugular vein they propose to sever a less important artery. They are much more cautions about the whole approach to changing the system of government for Wales and its system of representation. If they had been incompetent and clumsy about it, they would not have been making this proposal. They would have been saying "In the event of the choice of new systems of government for Wales and Scotland the representation from those countries shall be reduced as follows", and at least operating the equation laid down by the Kilbrandon Commission.
But the Conservatives would not have enjoyed such extended periods in government, and an even more extended


period of power, if they had been clumsy in the exercise of such power, especially on constitutional issues. As an admiring politician, although a hostile opponent of theirs, I give them full credit for approaching the matter in this way and saying "Let the Speaker's Conference decide. Let us have a serene council. Let us take all the factors into consideration, in the sure knowledge that at the end of the day Wales will be lucky to finish up with 25 Members of Parliament to discuss and determine the size of the block grant to serve the people of Wales."
I am full of admiration for the Opposition's political guile. Nevertheless—I think that the people of Wales clearly understand this—the inevitable consequence of the passage of the Bill and its operation, with an Assembly and everything that goes with it, is a reduction in the people's power. That is not because it has implications for the careers of politicians now sitting, but because it has grave implications for the power of the people of Wales to affect decisions that have a direct importance for them, the standard of living that they enjoy and the standard of services that they expect. If the Bill ever becomes operative we shall inevitably see that reduction in power.
I realise that there are hon. Members and parties outside the Chamber with a different interpretation of devolution and different aspirations for devolution than the Government propose in the Bill. Against the background of the new clause, in the referendum people should regard precisely what the Government propose, not what they might wish to happen or what the organisation to which they belong might have supported. For instance, they might be people closely associated with the Wales TUC who want a legislative Assembly. They might be nationalists who want independence, a Welsh Government, or whatever else. There are other people who think that we should simply democatise the non-elected bodies.
It is important that people take into account proposals such as the one in the new clause, the implications of a block grant, an identifiable, clearly demarcated Consolidated Fund allocated by the House of Commons, and all the other considerations. Most important of all, they should look at the precise proposals made by the Bill—not what they would like it to

be, not what they hope it will become or what they think it should have been, but what is actually proposed in the Bill.
People will find that the Bill does not serve the interests of nationalists. It does not meet the aspirations of the Liberal federalists. It goes way beyond the hopes of all those who want to unseat the unelected placemen of the various unelected bodies. It certainly has no proposal to meet the demands of the Wales TUC and other bodies for a legislative Assembly.
In fact, the Bill achives the remarkable gymnastic feat of falling through every one of those stools and not meeting any substantial section of opinion in Wales in favour either of more devolution or less devolution, independence or total union. If we strip away those who believe in much more, those who believe in something different, those who believe in much less, and those who believe that we should not be here in the first place, the numbers of people likely to support the Bill on the basis of a realistic assessment of what it proposes to do for the people of Wales are bound to be such as to mean its rejection.
What happens if after all that people think that they can see advantages in the Bill? If they look at the political realities of the period immediately following its passage and implementation, if they see what the reaction will be in the House of Commons and the rest of the United Kingdom, and assess whether that will be of advantage to them in claiming their fair proportion, or slightly more, of the total resources, financial and otherwise, of the United Kingdom, they can come to only one answer. It is the answer that I shall give to the new clause tonight, because we should try to keep certain options open to get whatever powers we can in the unfortunate event of the Bill's being implemented. I shall vote "No". I think that Wales will, too. The answer is "No". However, I understand the reason for tabling the clause. I understand the unavoidability and inevitability of tabling it. I understand, too, the inevitability of it becoming law in the event of the other document, the Wales Bill, becoming law.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: At this late stage I intervene to make a


few specific points. I begin with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). If I may say so, he ended extremely well although he had us rather confused at the beginning of his speech when talking about Tredegar, pirates, dressed as women in the Caribbean, Captain Morgan and the rest of it. However, at the end of his remarks he was at his very best.
After a breath-taking analysis of political motivation of all parties within Wales, including the party of which I am a Member, he ended at his best when he said that this measure does not meet the aspirations of any one competing part. That lines up precisely with that to which I draw attention, which is something that arose primarily during the speech of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) as regards actual powers and the struggle, perhaps, for more powers. That is aligned precisely with what has been said about the Bill meeting the aspirations of no competing part. It is part of the simple analysis that everybody will be competing—all the competing parts—for more or less power depending on their point of view.
It is necessary to go one step further. I think it was the hon. Member for West Lothian who said that the proposed Assembly is very different from a county council as it is put forward as a national representative body that has national connotations. That is the crisis of the proposal. The whole matter becomes quite different when we take into account national aspirations and connotations. In that light the Assembly becomes very different from any other body that we know.
I strengthen the point by saying that even the bodies that we know do not have national connotations and aspirations compete enough for power. We do not have to go back very far in history to see that competing for power. It is happening now. It has taken place after the local government reorganisation. It is happening between metropolitan councils and district councils. It is happening between district councils and county councils. If we create a body of the sort that is proposed in the name of the Assembly it will compete for power.
I come round to where I started in pursuing this argument. It is all very well for a Welsh nationalist to say "We do

not want that or the other. You can have all the Labour Members that you want at Westminster. We shall not deprive you of any of them." The answer is that they know full well that the Assembly, which will be a national body when it gets going, will be in possession of the power to discuss any aspect of national or even international policy, if not actual powers.
In that respect we do not have to go through the various clauses. We do not have to go through the precise powers to realise that there is no power to limit that which the Assembly may discuss. It may discuss virtually anything. Even if it cannot discuss something, I dare say that with a little nous and political common sense it will be able to raise any matter that it wishes.
It will be able to discuss virtually anything, even if certain matters are outside its powers. In that way we come to the direct representation that no doubt will be built up between the Assembly and central Government at Westminster. At each stage of the process this place will be suffering.

Mr. Dalyell: The Assembly will have the power to discuss, and it appears from that which was said yesterday in another place by a Government spokesman that it will be able to set up official committees to deal with such matters. That really is a vehicle for something else.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the point quite clear. Clearly it is a serious matter. My hon. Friends and I are grateful for the news that the hon. Gentleman periodically brings us from another place. The news is helpful, and the quality of the various points that have been made in another place is a good advertisement for the other place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me, although I do not wish to go beyond the limits of the clause.
I have dealt with my first point, which is a reiteration and development of the arguments that have already been made. However, it is, perhaps, the most important argument.
It seems that we are to be faced with a struggle, and in that light I come to


my second point, which is the argument about the quality of membership at Westminster, which has not been much discussed. The role of Members at Westminster and at Cardiff has been discussed. The diminution and representation of the Labour Party, or any other party, at Westminster has also been discussed. There remains the argument on quality. As the struggle takes place, which I see definitely happening, and I hope that I do not stand alone in taking that view, it is fair comment that the quality of Welsh politics will move from this place. That arises from what the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said. The quality will go more and more to its Welsh base so as to take part in the struggle and to develop something which has been put forward at a national Parliament. That is inevitable.
I appreciate that those on the Opposition Front Bench fairly, properly and rightly put that forward as being the fault of the Bill, but that is at the end of the day an inevitability that was implicit in the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards).
That is a problem with which we shall be faced in this place. The problem will not be solved by having fewer Welsh Members. As the struggle takes place on behalf of Wales, and as the Assembly gets more power and has a claim to represent in a greater and greater sense, obviously there will be counter-pressure, which ever party is in control of the House of Commons, There will be a counter-pressure from the national Government to reduce representation in this place. I shall not go into the West Glamorgan question all over again, but one pressure is related very much to the other.
What will be the quality of membership in the House of Commons? It would be sad to see replacements for the Under-Secretaries of State for Wales, the hon. Members for Bedwellty, and Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), or the galaxy of Welsh talent that at present is seated on the Opposition Front Bench. If we are to lose them, or if they are to turn firmly to Cardiff what are we to get in this place on behalf of Wales?
It seems that Wales cannot win the argument. That argument has already been advanced by the hon. Member for

Bedwellty. Wales will not win whichever view we take. There is also the frightening prospect, which has hardly been touched upon, that from the talent, such as it be, that comes to this place the Secretary of State and Ministers have to be provided. It is upon them that we shall have to put the burden and the trust of the day-to-day relations with the Assembly, that will be competing with them for greater powers.
We shall be faced with a diminution of talent and a grave loss to the House of Commons. We shall have a massive struggle between the House of Commons, central Government and Wales. At each stage the trend will be for the Assembly to compete with this place. Talent will go away from this place, and where that will lead is a matter of which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are fearful. It is for that reason that, fundamentally, we very much oppose the Bill.

Sir A. Meyer: I have always thought that si vis pacem pare bellum was a rather dangerous motto. I know that the inevitable consequence of the Bill will be to call in question the number of parliamentary representatives at Westminster. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower), I felt unable to support a similar new clause that was put forward during our proceedings on the Scotland Bill, if only for reasons of superstition. I feel unable to support such a clause in considering this Bill.
I recollect the film "Shoulder Arms", in which Charlie Chaplin, confronted by a house that had only the door left standing, would not enter the house except by painfully unlocking the door. I still have a touching faith in the reluctance of anyone to set in train a process that could result in the diminution of Members representing Wales in this place. For that reason I am reluctant to see the matter even raised and, therefore, I find it extremely difficult to support the clause.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The point made by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) none the less does not detract from what could be an interesting debate. This is an exercise in an academic discussion, because most hon. Members on both sides of the House have no real expectation that, in the referendum, the Government's proposals


will be carried. Nevertheless, there is an opportunity in the measure and in the new clause to discuss issues which may at some other time be relevant.
The new clause essentially sets out that there should be a Speaker's Conference because, as a direct result of the Bill, the numbers and composition of Welsh representation at Westminster are put in question. I must beg to differ from that assumption. I see no way in which at present, on the fairly limited form of executive devolution proposed, existing representation is put in question. I suppose that a more respectable argument can be made out in respect of Scotland with legislative devolution—that that by itself means that there should be a consequential change in the numbers of Scottish Members here—but, given the form of devolution proposed for Wales, I do not think that can properly be argued at this stage. That stage may be reached—this point was made by other hon. Members—further along the road if we are carried further along the road.
Certain arguments have been put forward. One is that there will be a more inward-looking Welshness at the expense of other considerations in the forefront of the Assembly's deliberations and that it will inevitably be pulled along towards a more insular and exclusive view of politics within the Principality. Certainly there are forces within the Principality which now seek to pull us along that road.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I appreciate the balanced way in which the hon. Gentleman is putting this point. But does he not see that, in the nature of things and in human nature, there will be a struggle for greater power for and coming from Cardiff? Have we not seen it all before in terms of struggle, power and the quality of Members—I do not want to be unfair to anyone—in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Anderson: I think it can be argued plausibly that there is a growth potential in this measure—that, by the very fact of human nature, people will seek extra powers and that there will therefore be greater pressure on the Government to increase the powers of the Assembly.
This is a major qualitative step in setting up an Assembly which, by its own

inherent forces and by the forces of human nature described by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), will inevitably carry us along that road. But, by making that very point he meets my argument that it is premature at this stage to have a Speaker's Conference. One is always reluctant to talk about inevitability in an historical process, but I concede the probability—a probability which is welcomed by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley)—that we shall be taken further along that road. But currently, on the basis of these proposals, it is clearly premature to have a Speaker's Conference on that which will within the foreseeable future flow from this devolution measure if—it is a very large "if"—it achieves the approval of the electorate in a referendurn.
One can no doubt, if one likes model building, imagine some time in the future when there will be a neat structure of certain functions in Brussels, in Westminster, in Cardiff in Edinburgh and possibly in the English regions with all the results which flow in terms of quality of representation.
I am not wholly convinced about there being a limited number of people of talent in Wales. Thank the Lord, Wales is a political nation. It has an apparently infinite number of people—missionaries—who go outside and sit for English seats in this place, achieve the top positions in trade unions and so on. We are an inherently political nation. I do not think that there is a finite well of political talent in Wales which the hon. Member for Leominster seems to accept.
That may be so at some stage in the future, but on present evidence, given the limited nature of this devolution proposal, it would be wrong to suggest that within the foreseeable future there must be a relook at Welsh representation. That may come. Indeed it will probably come as a result of the forces here at Westminster. But now it is premature. I hope that the hon Member for Leominster, with his Cassandra-like mutterings about what may come, will at least concede that, although it will probably come, it is now premature and that, therefore, it would be wrong to support the new clause.

8.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): I must say at the outset that, despite the brevity of our discussions this afternoon and evening and the time that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been constantly amazed at and congratulate hon. Members on both sides on the ingenuity with which they have been able to introduce such a fantastic array of items and to give the new clause an examination in depth, width, length, breadth, height and every other posible dimension.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) is not present, but I understand that he will be back. The only point with which I agreed in his speech was when he suggested that we should discuss what the Bill contains and proposes, not stretch it or develop fairy themes around it. However, it seemed to me that the content of his speech went a lot further than what the Bill proposed.
It seems to me that attitudes towards the new clause, with a few honourable exceptions on both sides, and the question of Welsh representation in the House of Commons are almost conditioned by the views on devolution held by hon. Members expressing views on the new clause. We had expressions of view on the principle of devolution tagged on to the question of representation here. Those who see devolution as essentially taking powers away portrayed a pessimistic, rather frightening picture, in which Wales would have a less significant voice here.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) need worry about a shortage of talent coming from Wales. It would be a matter of conceit for Welsh Members to believe that there were not many prospective Welsh Members equally as good as, if not better than, we are, sitting comfortably at home by their firesides at this moment.
I see devolution not taking away powers but adding something extra to Welsh life. It is an extension of democracy. The people of Wales will have a greater say in the management of their domestic affairs and, at the same time, a rightful say here in matters which affect the United Kingdom as a whole of which they are and obviously wish to remain part.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), with typical Welsh modesty, said that Wales had humanised Westminster. I think that in a different context hon. Members on both sides might say that Westminster sometimes had a similarily humanising effect upon Wales. But my hon. Friend made play of the fact that in the past great figures had come from Wales. Certainly no one would deny that. Anyone who had the privilege and honour to sit alongside the late James Griffiths in the House of Commons could not deny that.
My hon. Friend drew from that the conclusion that there would no longer be a place for such giants in the House of Commons. He suggested that the role of Welsh Members of Parliament in the House would be likened to that of pygmies. I thought that was going a bit further than the content of the Bill suggested.
It seems to me that the present problems facing the people of Wales are principally related to the economy, to industry and to employment. All the major powers affecting those issues remain here in the House. If we, as Welsh Members of this House, can overcome these problems, working in co-operation with our English comrades and our colleagues from Northern Ireland and Scotland, far from being pygmies we shall have become giants.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: By the list that the Minister has given, at least by implication he acknowledges that it would not be easy for another Aneurin Bevan to come to this House and give of his experience on social issues, on which he orginally made his great reputation.

Mr. Jones: In my limited experience of Nye Bevan—and I accept that the hon. Member has greater knowledge than I have—I would have thought that his impact would make itself felt anyway in whatever forum he found himself. He was not just limited to social services either; he played a role in foreign affairs and other issues.
There are significant functions here and the exercise of these functions in order to meet people's needs will enable Welsh Members to show that we can be giants in the future just as we were in the past.

Mr. Anderson: My hon. Friend is expressing a hope that Welsh Members will play an important role after devolution but perhaps in seeking to be objective we should look at the only analogy we have—the case in Northern Ireland. That Province with fairly similar powers could not produce any Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency, from the middle 1950s to 1974, who achieved even minor governmental office except for the then Mr. Robin Chichester Clark. This gives an indication of the way in which the House regards hon. Members from Northern Ireland.

Mr. Jones: It is a fact that in the 11 years that I have been a Member of this House there have been Members from Northern Ireland who were members of Government before 1974—and I see no reason for picking that period. But I would have thought that other factors were involved before one can draw such conclusions. Rightly or wrongly, those who have represented Northern Ireland have tended in the main to support one particular political philosophy.

Mr. Powell: Is the Minister seriously saying that it would be easy or even possible after this Bill for a Member for a Welsh constituency to become Minister of Education or Secretary of State for Social Services?

Mr. Jones: The right hon. Member must bear in mind the fact that since we have had decentralisation my right hon. and learned Friend who is Secretary of State for Wales is also responsible for education in Wales. I could well understand that any Prime Minister would feel that his Secretary of State for Education should be representative of somewhere else other than Wales in those circumstances.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) said that devolution would bring about a devastating change in the role of Welsh Members. I concede the point that it will bring about a change. If it did not, there would be no point or purpose in our talking about devolution. It is the interpretation of the word "change" that counts. I think it is a change for the better and I argue that there is a major vital role for Welsh Members of Parliament under this Bill.
I would have thought that in the last few years one of the issues that has brought about particularly devastating changes to the role of hon. Members has been our entry into the EEC, yet I can recall no criticism from Conservatives generally about that.
Judging by the comments that I hear, there is inadequate time available to discuss EEC matters which arise late at night, and go on into the early hours of the morning. The House has not yet come to terms with that. I have not heard any Back Bench Members express great satisfaction at the way in which the role of hon. Members is being carried out in this context.
The Minister for Agriculture and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales are in Brussels today discussing agricultural matters. I would have thought that this was the sort of change in the role of Members which has had the devastating effect that the hon. Member for Pembroke seems to imply will come about as a consequence of devolution.
We made our position on this matter quite clear right from the ancient document—the White Paper of September 1974, Command 5732, in which we said:
The setting up of Scottish and Welsh assemblies does not, however, detract in any way from the overriding interest of all the peoples of the United Kingdom in the determination of United Kingdom policies as a whole… For this reason the Government regard it as essential that both Scotland and Wales should retain their existing number of Members of Paliament in the United Kingdom Parliament…
The White Paper went on to talk about the important function of distributing resources between Scotland and Wales and the regions of England. This was to be determined by the Government and approved in this House of Commons, with Scotland and Wales being required to be represented fully in this discussion Therefore, it seems that, despite all the arguments, there is no justification whatever for a reduction in the number of Welsh MPs consequent upon devolution.
The reduction in the number of Members is unjustified because the Welsh Assembly is not being given any legislative powers. All the laws will still be passed here. Parliament itself will play its part in legislation as before. When the hon. Member for Pembroke said that hon. Members would be powerless he is wrong


again. In recent years hon. Members have shown that they are able to exercise power to influence and change legislation. I believe that it is the intention of certain hon. Members to do just that to forthcoming legislation. I believe in Parliament having that power and I believe that in that legislative role Welsh Members of Parliament will have a vital role to play.
8.30 p.m.
However the hon. Member for Pembroke reads the report of the Kilbrandon Commission—and I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) is not present in the Chamber—it is quite clear that in its recommendations in paragraph 905 it says, referring to the previous chapter,
In the last chapter we examined the case for reducing the representation of Scotland and Wales in the House of Commons if they were given legislative assemblies of their own and Parliament remained responsible for all English legislation. This question does not arise under executive devolution, since Parliament would continue to legislate for all regions.
All that I am saying is that it seems to me that that was quite clearly the majority view—and I accept that there were minority views—and that certainly one is entitled to pray in aid the words
This question does not arise under executive devolution.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: It is also fair, then, I think, to quote another paragraph from Kilbrandon, paragraph 1155, which says:
It is an essential feature of the scheme that it should be applied in a more or less uniform way throughout Great Britain.
We have always made clear that it is the act of separating the treatment of Wales and Scotland that makes the difference on this issue.

Mr. Jones: I am not denying that there are other quotations from Kilbrandon, but I am pointing out only this one because in the context in which we are talking, Kilbrandon was talking about the implications for central Government of having executive devolution. Quite clearly the argument and the consensus view of Kilbrandon was that as long as one was moving for executive devolution, there was no justification whatsoever for a reduction in the number of Welsh Members

of Parliament in the House of Commons.

Mr. Kinnock: Will not my hon. Friend accept that it is one thing for the Kilbrandon Commission, five years ago, and for him today to say that this question of changing the representation does not arise, in this frozen moment of April 1978, and it is another thing altogether in the practicality of the post-devolutionary situation for the House of Commons to take a different view? Does not this proposal gamble with the future to the extent that under the present system of government there is no justification for reducing the number of Members, but under that future system of government, a different system, there might conceivably be justification?

Mr. Jones: I believe that there are far greater gambles with the future than that. It seems to me that unless one deals with an aspiration which is showing in Wales and Scotland—we can argue about the extent of that aspiration, and the referendum will show one way or the other—the consequences could be infinitely worse than anything else.
On this issue I also say to my hon. Friend that there would be nothing to prevent incoming Governments or the next House of Commons, even if nothing were done now on devolution, making suggestions for reducing the number of Welsh Members of Parliament here for a variety of different reasons.

Mr. Kinnock: They would.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend says "They would", but I, at least, lived through the time when they did, when certain actions were taken which cost my constituency of Rhondda an additional Member of Parliament. That is not so long ago. Those things happen even without any form of devolution.

Mr. Kinnock: But—

Mr. Jones: No, let me continue. When I have had a second breath, perhaps my hon. Friend can come back again.
Therefore, for those reasons, I do not believe that one can justify a reduction. But I say that for another reason, too. I believe that if one were to accept the new clause and the implication behind it of


a reduction in the number of Welsh Members of Parliament, this itself could well be regarded—I would certainly regard it so—as a threat to the unity of the United Kingdom, since matters which are essential to that unity will be decided here and those matters which are essential to that unity need full Welsh and Scottish representation in the House of Commons.
I was not quite sure of the purpose behind it, but the hon. Member for Pembroke seemed, to me at least, to be saying that he did not want a reduction in the number of Welsh Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman nodded his head in agreement with me. If that is so, it seems a very odd way of going about it, because if the matter had not been raised in the new clause, it would not have been raised in this debate. Not only has it been raised in a speech which went on for a fairly lengthy time, but it was also suggested that it should be dealt with by a Speaker's Conference. Despite the hon. Member's protestations that he did not want a reduction, the new clause seems to be a vehicle which could bring that about. Indeed, he used many of the arguments used by those who want the number reduced.
We ignore at our peril those matters which are essential for the unity of the United Kingdom—international affairs, development partnership with the EEC, national security and defence, trade and industry, employment, industrial relations, management of the economy, energy and social security. Do the Welsh Conservative Members of Parliament believe that, even after devolution, Wales needs a quieter, more still voice of representation in this Chamber? If not, it is unreasonable of them to support the new clause. But if they do, many of their tears about industry, employment and EEC problems are crocodile tears.
These matters vitally concern everyone in the United Kingdom and there is no reasonable argument for reducing representation on these essential interests, even after devolution, of those of us who live in Wales.
The vehicle suggested is an odd one. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) started this, and some other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) suggested that they did not think that a

Speaker's Conference was a good idea. The Government also believe that a Speaker's Conference is not the appropriate forum for legislation. It has always been the practice to regard a Speaker's Conference and the forming of its agenda as a matter of agreement between the parties. I do not see that sort of agreement materialising tonight.
If a Speaker's Conference were set up, I invite the hon. Member for Pembroke to say what evidence the Conservatives would give it. Would they call for a reduction, an increase or merely the preservation of the status quo? Judging from the new clause, I suspect that they are not sure, because it is permissive and not mandatory. That suggests that they have doubts.
As for in-and-out voting, I believe that experience, the Kilbrandon Report and plain common sense weigh heavily against any such system.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) brought us posthaste a communication from the other Chamber and a question whether the Scottish Assembly could establish a defence committee. I assume that, to stay in order, he is interested in the Welsh Assembly's powers in this regard. This Bill—I am advised that, apart from the difference between legislative and executive responsibility, the same would apply to the Scotland Bill—devolves executive responsibility for a number of matters to the Welsh Assembly but defence is not devolved and the Assembly will have no powers in this field. However, the Assembly will almost certainly want to discuss all matters of concern to Wales and cannot effectively be prevented from doing so. It can also appoint committees, but such a committee would have no powers.
I am surprised that the provision is regarded as a revelation of something new. Clause 18 was written into the Bill many moons ago. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian reminded the Committee that we have now been discussing this matter for 42 days and 42 nights. Therefore, it is not a matter which has suddenly arrived because of something that has been said in the upper House.
Furthermore, in Welsh terms this situation is not new. I remember the


Rhondda Borough Council frequently expressing its views on Vietnam and the nuclear disarmament campaign. I know that in recent years there have been representations to the Welsh Office by county and district councils on defence installations and other topics. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), when he was Secretary of State for Wales, received similar approaches.
This is not a matter of one local authority acting on its own, but we must remember that it was the Mid-Glamorgan County Council that called a conference affecting the whole of Wales. Representatives came to that conference from almost every local authority to discuss unemployment in Wales. I see nothing objectionable in an Assembly having the same sort of power which every district council and county council now possesses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty thought that this was a desirable feature, and I agree with him. He also seemed to think that Clause 29 would prevent that process taking place. That is not so. The purpose of Clause 29 is to demonstrate that the Assembly cannot conduct relations with another country if we are talking about agreements, exchange representatives, joint arrangements and other matters. However, there is nothing in Clause 29 to prevent the Assembly from communicating its views to another country, and there have been occasions when my hon. Friend's own district council has carried out that role in the past.

Mr. Anderson: Does my hon. Friend the Minister not accept that there is an essential difference between Mid-Glamorgan calling a conference on unemployment, which is concerned with planning and industrial development in its own area, and a Welsh Assembly calling a conference, say, on an international matter which would be quite beyond the expected competence of the Assembly?

Mr. Jones: I do not agree that we should take this power away from the Assembly. If one sets up an Assembly and gives it certain powers, one knows that that Assembly will do what it wants to do. But nobody can stop a group of people—certainly not a group of Welsh people, and certainly not a group of

elected Welsh people—talking about any subject under the sun. That is the reality of the situation. Therefore the provisions in Clause 18 are quite correct.
This issue was raised on the Scotland Bill, and indeed also on the Scotland and Wales Bill. In the debate in February 1977 a suggestion aimed at incorporating a provision on the lines of New Clause No. 2 was rejected by 277 votes to 199. In January 1978 a similar provision in the Scotland Bill was rejected by 272 vote to 220.
I invite the Opposition to withdraw their new clause. If they do not do so, I shall ask the Committee to reject it. However, I shall keep talking for a few moments more since I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty wishes to intervene.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Kinnock: My hon. Friend has specified the areas which the Assembly might discuss. Do I take it that he is saying that under Clause 29 the Assembly cannot have relations but it can have affairs?—in which case that might make it much more appealing to some of our colleagues and kinsmen in Wales.
Seriously, I should have expected my hon. Friend to understand the difference between, on the one hand, the profession of an opinion by a local authority, an elected body of people with political opinions, and the way in which that is ignored, taken on board or cast aside by the Government, and, on the other hand, the expression of a similar opinion by a committee or by the whole Assembly, a national Assembly, and the consequences of that being cast aside or ignored by the central Government.
My hon. Friend is well acquainted with the reality of these matters. Will he understand that there is a qualitative difference between the two affairs?

The Chairman: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he is straying extremly wide in that intervention.

Mr. Jones: It is a little difficult to reply when my hon. Friend has virtually been told that he is not quite in order, but may I go back to a concrete example? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members must have as much patience as I have needed to have in the past few weeks. They also serge who only sit and wait,


I commend that as a good motto to hon. Members.
The Mid-Glamorgan County Council called the conference on unemployment in Wales. There was an expression of opinion. No one can reasonably say that, merely because it was called by a county council, my right hon. and learned Friend would ignore the feelings and opinions there expressed. Such expressions of opinion are made to my right hon. and learned Friend and, I assume, to all Ministers in successive Governments, and from whatever source they come they must receive some attention.
May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty—with this I shall sit down, though only for the moment, not for good—that I do not think that I can define the difference between affairs and relations. I like both.

Mr. Pym: In the course of this quite long and interesting debate, the frontiers of New Clause No. 2 have been pushed out for a fairly substantial distance. We have even had a discussion about the possibility of the Assembly considering foreign affairs—so much so, indeed, that the Under-Secretary of State seems to have summoned his colleague the Minister of State at the Foreign Office. I see that the hon. Gentleman has arrived on the Government Front Bench, having heard the news, no doubt, and the message will have travelled fast in Whitehall that perhaps the Foreign Office had better come in and take a watching brief.
Until the Under-Secretary of State rose to reply, every hon. Member who had spoken, from all parts of the House, spoke against the Bill. Everyone wanted the Bill to be defeated one way or another. Sad to say, by no means all hon. Members were in favour of New Clause No. 2, but practically all said that the thinking behind it and its implications were inevitable. Indeed, the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) said in terms that the reduction of the number of Members of Parliament in Wales would be inevitable.
Our new clause is not designed to do that. Its purpose is to set up a Speaker's Conference to consider representation, and the truth is that everyone would prefer not to face up to what the new clause implies. Everyone would prefer to defeat the Bill.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) talked about my right hon. and hon. Friends not going for the jugular. The answer is that we are going for the jugular on this Bill. I hope that he and more of his hon. Friends will join us when the crucial Divisions come—certainly on Third Reading and on a number of other rather important occasions yet to come when the jugular will be on offer. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall not be making mere pin-pricks. We shall take the knife to it, and, as we are not quite numerous enough to succeed by ourselves alone, we shall look for a bit of assistance.
I acknowledge that there are certain illogicalities and a certain inappropriateness about the new clause. That derives, at least in part, from the fact that we have had a guillotine. The effect of that upon our debates has been major. We have not been able to debate a great many clauses, including, incidentally, Clause 18. Had we been able to debate in the usual way the very important issues raised throughout the Bill it is possible that the issues that we have discussed today and the thinking behind the new clause would have arisen in another way and in other circumstances, and, therefore, it would not have been necessary to table the clause. We think, however, that in the circumstances facing the Committee it was right to table the clause.
The main reason we are against the Bill is that we wish Wales to retain its most powerful voice, namely the 36 Members of Parliament representing Wales. That is by far the strongest voice for Wales, and we do not want anything to be done in the Bill—or any other Bill—that will damage that voice. The Bill, if implemented, will damage that position.
Some Labour Members who feel that the Bill is not right and should be thrown out, but who do not feel able to vote against it, are relying on the referendum. If the Bill becomes an Act, we hope and judge that the people of Wales will take that view. But we have to face the possibility that the Bill will be not only en-enacted but supported.
The Under-Secretary said that the purpose of the Bill was to have something extra for Wales. That is a very attractive and desirable thought. However, in doing that, we have also to consider the effect


of the Bill and that sort of devolution on the rest of the United Kingdom and on the House of Commons. It is that side of the equation that the Government have forgotten to think about.
The Under-Secretary spoke about the changes that have been brought about on the House as a result of our joining the European Community. He is right about that, but at least it applies to every hon. Member and to every part of the United Kingdom. The Bill, however, would bring about a change that affects Wales—that is to say, one part of the United Kingdom—and a change in the relationship between Members representing Welsh seats and the rest.
The Minister also said that the Government believed that there was not a case for a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament for Wales. Without the Bill, the Conservative Party emphatically believes that to be the case. But if the Bill is passed, the position will not remain unaltered for long, as everybody has been saying with the inevitability argument, for the simple reason that the impact on England will, in the end, prove to be untenable. It is wrong to describe the future role of Members of Parliament for Wales as that of pygmies, as did the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), but the Bill will greatly change their role.
If the Bill is enacted, there will be three different roles in relation to Wales. One will be in matters where the Assembly is responsible for executive actions, that is to say, for the issues that will be devolved to Wales. The second role will be in the non-devolved matters, in which the Secretary of State for Wales would be responsible for distinctively Welsh matters. Thirdly, there is the situation in which the role of the United Kingdom is involved and Welsh Members of Parliament will be playing their part in the full United Kingdom role.
What will be the effect of each of those roles on English Members? On matters affecting the whole of the United Kingdom, there is no effect because English Members—and the English electors who sent them here—will have exactly the same influence and role as a Member of Parliament in Wales or in Scotland. When Parliament is concerned with legislation for England and Wales only, the

English and Welsh Member and the elector for English and Welsh constituencies who sent that Member there will have only 89 per cent. of control of that decision, whereas the Scots will have complete control, because they can vote on all matters affecting England and Scotland.
When Parliament is concerned with executive orders or subordinate legislation for England alone, the English electors will have only 83 per cent. control of their destiny—unlike the Welsh and the Scots, who will have 100 per cent. control of their destinies.
The Under-Secretary gave the impression that the devolution that was envisaged for Wales was executive only, but it is also legislative. It affects subordinate legislation. That has been devolved, and there is legislative as well as executive devolution for Wales—although on a different basis from that for Scotland. That is what causes the problem.
The inconsistencies that will flow from the Bill if it is put into effect will not disappear. Everyone has admitted that fact in the debate, and that is why we tabled the new clause. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that it was premature and other Members have criticised it, but is necessary to prepare for the inconsistency that will arise and to write into the Bill this new clause which will force the House of Commons, through a Speaker's Conference, to consider the implications of what has happened.
It will not be a matter of the Speaker's Conference having to make a decision or of the House shuffling off responsibility for a decision to the conference. We are asking Mr. Speaker to set up a conference in the usual way to consider all the issues involved and to make recommendations. It must be for the House to make the decisions.
Everybody in this debate has admitted that the people of Wales ought to understand what will be the impact if the Bill is enacted. They ought to understand that the English will take a different view about Wales and about the arrangements for Wales. It appears to me that the Government are trying to put over their case on the basis that everything will go on just the same and that all that will happen is that there will be a new


Assembly—something extra for Wales—that everyone will be able to enjoy that, and nothing else will change. We know that it will not be like that. As with the Scotland Bill, this Bill sets up a legislative Assembly, though in a different form from that in Scotland.
That is why we tabled the new clause. It would be infinitely preferable to defeat the whole Bill. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that if the Bill were enacted there lay ahead an infinite vista of instability. We all feel, certainly on the Conservative Benches, that that is so. We know it is not going to work, that it will have an

unsatisfactory impact on this House, and that serious adjustments will have to be made to rescue this country, and particularly Wales, from the mess that will follow the implementation of the Bill.

That is why we would prefer it not to go through. If it does, we must make the best of it, but we think that we shall be forced to take a new view of the consequences of the Bill for Wales and for Parliament.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 160.

Division No. 190]
AYES
[9.00 p.m.


Arnold, Tom
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Parkinson, Cecil


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gray, Hamish
Percival, Ian


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Griffiths, Eldon
Pink, R. Bonner


Awory, Daniel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Bell, Ronald
Hannam, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Raison, Timothy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hicks, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brittan, Leon
Hordern, Peter
Rhodes James, R.


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ridsdale, Julian


Brooke, Peter
Hurd, Douglas
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brotherton, Michael
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bryan, Sir Paul
James, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Jopling, Michael
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Budgen, Nick
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Bulmer, Esmond
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Burden, F. A.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Knox, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Carlisle, Mark
Lamont, Norman
Shepherd, Colin


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Silvester, Fred


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sims, Roger


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Clegg, Walter
Lawson, Nigel
Spence, John


Cockroft, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stainton, Keith


Cope, John
Lloyd, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Corrie, John
Luce, Richard
Stanley, John


Costain, A. P.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stradling Thomas, J.


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
McCrindle, Robert
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John
Tebbit, Norman


Drayson, Burnaby
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Emery, Peter
Marten, Neil
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mayhew, Patrick
Wakeham, John



Fairgrieve, Russell
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Farr, John
Mills, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Miscampbell, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wells, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wiggin, Jerry


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Winterton, Nicholas


Fry, Peter
Mudd, David
Younger, Hon Georgs


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Nelson, Anthony



Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glyn, Dr Alan
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Goodhew, Victor
Page, Richard (Workington)
Mr. Jim Lester.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Blaker, Peter
Canavan, Dennis


Atkinson, Norman
Boardman, H.
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bain Mrs. Margaret
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Bates, Alf
Bradley, Tom
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Beith, A. J.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cohen, Stanley


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cowans, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Buchan, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)




Crawford, Douglas
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cryer, Bob
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rowlands, Ted


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sedgemore, Brian


Deakins, Eric
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sever, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kinnock, Neil
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lamborn, Harry
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)



Dewar, Donald
Lamond, James
Silverman, Julius


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Skinner, Dennis


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dunn, James A.
Loyden, Eddie
Spriggs, Leslie


Edge, Geoff
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McCartney, Hugh
Stott, Roger


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Evans, John (Newton)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Mackintosh, John P.
Thompson, George


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Madden, Max
Tierney, Sydney


Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan
Tilley, John (Lambeth, Central)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon
Tinn, James


Forrester, John
Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Tomlinson, John


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V>


George, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Golding, John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Gould, Bryan
Meacher, Michael
Ward, Michael


Gourlay, Harry
Mendelson, John
Watkins, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, Austin
Watt, Hamish


Grant, John (Islington C)
Molloy, William
Wellbeloved, James


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Moonman, Eric
Welsh, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
White, James (Pollok)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitlock, William


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wigley, Dafydd


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Newens, Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hooley, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Hooson, Emlyn
Ovenden, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Padley, Walter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Parry, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pavitt, Laurie
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prescott, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hunter, Adam
Richardson, Miss Jo
Young, David (Bolton E)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoin)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Janner, Greville
Robinson, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roderick, Caerwyn
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Mr. Frank R. White.


John, Brynmor
Rooker, J. W.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause No. 9

PUBLICATION OF PROCEEDINGS

The Assembly shall publish daily a verbatim report of its proceedings and of the proceedings of its Committees and shall place such reports on public sale at reasonable prices.".—[Mr. Brittan.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As the Committee will be well aware, there is very little in the Bill about the detailed organisation and conduct of the Welsh Assembly. It is understandable that that should be the case. However much one may disagree with the concept of creating an Assembly of this kind, with powers of this kind, if one is creating an Assembly it is right that it should not be tied down in too great detail with regard to its operation. If it has to come into existence, I would not wish it to be unnecessarily restricted.
On the other hand, even the Government recognise that certain provisions are necessary with regard to the conduct of the Assembly. There are a few clauses in the Bill dealing with such matters as the first meeting of the Assembly, Standing Orders, pecuniary interests, and so on. We believe that one of the most important requirements, if the Assembly is to work, in any sense—and if it is to do as little damage as possible to the structure of government, not only in Wales but in the United Kingdom as a whole—is that at least every possible step should be taken to ensure that there is public confidence in its operation. It is to that end that the new clause is directed.
The importance of the Assembly in the government of Wales needs no underlining. Not only is it an Executive—as the Government readily concede and present it to be—it is at least half a legislature, in that it has the power of secondary legislation. Again and again in our debates examples have been given of the far-reaching extent of the measures that


can be imposed—and the changes brought about—by means of secondary legislation in areas such as education where, as we know, the whole direct grant system was created and destroyed by secondary and not primary legislation.
With an Assembly of this kind, it is right that a body which has such a wide ranging variety of powers on such a substantial scale should be one in which the public has confidence. The only way in which the public can genuinely have confidence in what the Assembly is doing is if they know, and have ready means of knowing to the extent that they are interested, what the Assembly has done on a prompt and regular basis. That is why the new clause, in effect requiring a Hansard of the Assembly, is proposed. We believe that the Assembly should sit in public and that what goes on in it should be fully and publicly available. There is no provision in the Bill to ensure that that happens.
9.15 p.m.
No doubt if the Assembly is set up the question whether its proceedings should be broadcast will arise. That is a matter that can legitimately be left for Cardiff to decide. Obviously, it is a matter that the Assembly can decide. It is possible for the Assembly to be public without its deliberations being broadcast, but those deliberations must be publicly and readily available.
There are factors that relate to the operation of the Assembly which make it even more important that its proceedings should be public. I have it in mind that the Assembly will operate a committee system. In that respect—painful as it may be for the Government to hear the analogy—the Assembly will be similar to a local authority.
I am not clear whether, in the absence of such provisions in the Bill, the provisions governing the admission of the public to local authority meetings and committees will apply to the Assembly. I should have thought that they would not apply. On the face of it, those provision apply only to local authorities. There is nothing in the Bill which directly equates the Assembly with local authorities in that respect. If much of the work of the Assembly, which will operate as an executive, deliberative and legislative body, is to be done in Committee, it

is even more important that the public should know what is going on and have a ready means of finding out what is going on.
If one is concerned about delegated legislation it is not enough to provide that an edict should go"out from Cardiff and a decision should be made known. The public have the right to follow debates in detail. There is no guarantee that even the hawk-like Welsh Press will find the deliberations of such spell-binding interest that it will report automatically those proceedings, if it is allowed into the committees—and there is no guarantee that it will be.
There will be interested people involved in education, health, housing, and so forth, who will wish to follow in detail what is said in the Assembly. The only way of ensuring that is to provide the type of record that the Official Report provides for the House of Commons. That is particularly true of committees.
There is also the question of cost. Perhaps the cost of providing Hansard for the Assembly and committees will be substantial. I am not in a position to make an estimate. I imagine that since there is no provision in the Bill for such expenditure, it is not included in the estimate of the total cost of setting up the Assembly which is set out at the biginning of the Bill. That is misleading, because although I expect that the Secretary of State will say that the Assembly will no doubt itself decide to provide a Hansard, my guess is that that cost is not included in the cost of setting up the Assembly. If I am wrong about that, I am sure that the Secretary of State will deal with it.
The Assembly should publish a report. Whether it should do so as a result of a legislative requirement imposed by the House of Commons or of its own volition is a matter on which there may be scope for legitimate debate. Either way it should be done, and if it is to be done the cost is certainly part of the cost of the Assembly and should be included in the estimates. If it is included, I shall be delighted to hear it but as there is no response I assume that it is not. If it is not, the money will come out of the block grant that is to be negotiated, which will mean that much less for the people of Wales to have spent on their


behalf on education, housing, and so on. If the Secretary of State says that in the calculation of the block grant account will be taken of the cost of providing a Hansard for the Assembly, it should appear as one of the extra costs and should therefore feature in the Bill's preliminaries.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he has not costed the operation. He has not mentioned the possibility of a request for a bilingual report, which would at least double the cost. If he is to argue that this cost will have to be met, and could well come from the amount allocated to the Assembly, surely discretion could be given to the Assembly to determine whether it should incur this expense. I imagine that it would be substantial, especially if all the proceedings in committees as well as the main debates in the Assembly are to reported bilingually. Is not that a reason for the Assembly to decide, rather than for us to make it an instruction that it should publish reports of all committee proceedings?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my two final points, to which I was coming next. I have little doubt that the Assembly will want to permit its proceedings to be conducted in both English and Welsh. Whether it does or does not, I have equally little doubt that it will be necessary for the proceedings to be published in both languages, and any estimate of the cost will have to take that into account.
Whether it should be left to the Assembly to decide must be a matter of judgment. Plainly, some ground rules about the way in which the Assembly operates are set out in the Bill. The balance, the detail, will be decided by the Assembly. In the context of the creation of an Assembly, there is no need for us to get too heated on the question where the line is to be drawn. That, too, must be a matter of judgment.
But presumably the criteria for what matters are included in the Bill and what are to be left to the Assembly must be that they are regarded as absolutely essential and fundamental to the operation of a democratic Assembly with substantial powers, and that without them an Assembly cannot have the confidence that

it should have if it is to be set up at all. Those matters should appear in the Bill, and the rest can be left to the Assembly.
I am suggesting that today, in a world in which Assemblies of an executive kind, and certainly of a quasi-legislative kind, are dealing with complex matters of interest to outside bodies, which will want to make representations at the various stages of consideration, the question of the report of what is said is not a peripheral question, which can be left as a matter of discretion it is a central question. The Assembly cannot work democratically and properly if people are not in a position to know in detail what it is doing.
The hon. Gentleman is rightly foreshadowing a situation in which the Assembly may say "The mean British Treasury has not given us enough money, and so, instead of spending our resources on Hansard, especially on a bilingual Hansard, we shall spend it on schools, hospitals, and things that really count."
That argument would be extremely attractive to the Assembly. It is one that would not, I suspect, lose Assembly Members any votes. No doubt schools and hospitals are popular in Wales, and no doubt Hansards have limited democratic popularity. However such a decision would be fundamentally subversive to the whole concept of democracy as we know it. That would be so because it would deprive others of the opportunity of knowing what was happening and, therefore, reacting in a way to which they should be entitled. The Assembly will operate not in vacuo but in accordance with representations made to it and views put to it. If the means of an informed debate outside the Assembly do not exist, it cannot operate.
The fact that the hon. Gentleman has foreshadowed and contemplated as a real possibility the Assembly's not wishing to spend money on Hansard underlines the importance of our inserting a requirement that it does so. That should be done not in any hostile sense but to ensure that the basic democratic framework for the operation of a deliberative executive and quasi-legislative Assembly exists.

Sir Raymond Gower: I merely want to suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that for two reasons it is inconceivable


that the Welsh Hansard should not be bilingual. Some of the Members of the Assembly will be from predominantly Welsh speaking areas, and will want it to be printed in Welsh. Secondly, there is the validity of the Welsh language. It has now been accepted and is a part of our law.

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My expectation that the Welsh Hansard would be bilingual was made from infinitely less knowledge of the circumstances than that possessed by my hon. Friend. I am grateful to have my assessment of the situation confirmed so authoritatively.
The cost must be faced, and for the reason that I have put forward I believe that the requirement is one that is not optional but central to the operation of a democratic Assembly. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable that it should be put forward in the Bill. It is inconceivable that such a requirement could be re-regarded as any sort of hostile act; it merely buttresses the operation of the Assembly. It no more dictates to it than the insertion of pecuniary interests and standing orders provisions, along with a whole host of other matters that appear in the Bill.
It is in that sense and in that spirit that I commend the clause.

Mr. Dalyell: It is in my mind that when we were discussing the Scotland Bill inquiries were made about Hansard for a Scottish Assembly. The feeling was that the cost would not be much less than the cost of the House of Commons Hansard, which is of the order—I stand open to correction—of £850,000 a year. Presumably some preliminary figures have been worked out. There must be some notion of what the cost would be. I ask for the very roundest figures.
As any of us who are delegates to the European Parliament will know, the cost of translation services is fantastic. Once translator is introduced it is necessary to have skilled translators. The technicalities are mind boggling. Everything has to be translated from one language into another. Translation adds to costs by a factor of two or three. All the typescript has to be reset.
I see that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is in the

Chamber. My hon. Friend has recently returned from Luxembourg. He will know the difficulties that I am talking about. What are the costs that are involved? It is unthinkable to have any sort of Assembly without having a record.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman said that for any Assembly the costs would be unthinkable. Is he aware that in institutions such as the Gwynedd County Council there are already facilities for simultaneous translation and the publication of all documents in both languages? This is undertaken not to facilitate the Welsh speakers, who make up all but five or six of the council, but to help non-Welsh speakers who otherwise would not understand.

Mr. Dalyell: I think that the hon. Gentleman misheard me. I did not say that the costs were unthinkable. I said that it was unthinkable not to have a written record.

Sir Raymond Gower: I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the new clause. I am surprised that they have not indicated their acceptance of this principle in some way either by informing my right hon. and hon. Friends or by putting down a new clause of their own, possibly in language which they prefer. I see no objection to the principle. I hope that the Government will quickly signify that they find it acceptable.
I have no objection to the Assembly working out the details. I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will not be too superior about this linguistic problem. The day may come in the not-too-distant future when there will be a clamour to have the proceedings of the Scottish Assembly in Gaelic. I do not know. It may be a relatively small thing at present, but circumstances change.
I think that there should be written into the Bill, if enacted, that there must be a verbatim report of the proceedings of the Welsh Assembly. No sensible debate can be conducted in any Assembly without a verbatim report of the proceedings being made available to its Members. We know how difficult it is when industrial or other reasons prevent the publication of Hansard in time for us to refer to the speeches of other hon.


Members on earlier occasions—even on the previous day in a continuous debate. Therefore, we want inserted into the legislation, if enacted, that there shall be a daily verbatim report on the lines of the Official Report of the proceedings of the House of Commons.
The new clause states that the verbatim report shall be
on public sale at reasonable prices.
Looking at a recent copy of Hansard, I noted that it was priced at 33p. I do not know how that is costed. It may be, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) stated in his admirable opening, that the bilingual element will demand a much larger cost. But provision for that should be made by the Government at this stage. That is another reason why it should be in the Bill. It is not fair to leave this as an expenditure which would bear harshly on the Assembly. Apparently the Government have so far made no provision for this matter.
I suggest that not only should the need for and the provision of a verbatim report of the proceedings be in the Bill, but that the Government should make provision for the report at reasonable cost.
As I intimated in an intervention, it is inconceivable that the report should not be bilingual. It must be bilingual.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I wonder whether my hon. Friend can help me. With a bilingual Hansard, which would be the official version if it came to a debate on it?

Sir R. Gower: I should imagine that in an Assembly of this kind we would accept the law of the country, which is that there is equal validity. I am open to correction by the Secretary of State, but I should have thought that there was bound to be equal validity. This will be a bilingual Assembly in a country where both languages are spoken by significant numbers of people.

Mr. Wigley: I would have imagined that the principle must be that the language in which the original comments were made would be the valid version. This would overcome the problem if there were any differences in the translation.

Sir R. Gower: I agree. Where there are idiomatic differences that are unavoidable we must accept the language in which the speaker has spoken. The original English or Welsh version may present difficulties of translation of some exact idiomatic phrase. In such cases it must be inevitable that the words of the speaker, taken in the language that he or she has used,"would be considered as valid for the purpose of any subsequent investigation or interpretation of the meaning of them.
There will be equal validity, however, which is implicit in any country like Wales where two languages are spoken. There will be a large number of people elected to the Assembly who are more fluent in English and a lesser number who are more fluent in Welsh.
While I agree that the working out of the details can be properly left to the Assembly, I do not think that we should avoid all responsibility for this task. We must place the onus fairly and squarely on the Assembly of providing a report, but we should make provision to enable it to do this economically. We do not want a daily verbatim report that no one can afford. That is why we have used the words "reasonable prices" in the new clause. I hope that the Government will at least accept the principle behind the new clause.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I hope that the Government will resist the new clause. While I follow the argument that there should be a verbatim report of the deliberations of the Assembly in its main meetings, I do not take the point that it is essential for democracy that every word uttered in every committee should be known to everyone in Wales.
If that is what the Opposition are saying, they are arguing that every county council and local authority in Wales should have a verbatim report of all its proceedings. These councils are quite democratic, although the report that is issued is usually just a report of their decisions at the end of proceedings.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: If that is what the hon. Member believes then he is at cross purposes not just with me but with his own Front Bench as well. The whole point of the Bill is that the body that is being set up is not a local authority. It


is an Assembly which purports to speak for a nation and to a nation and which has legislative power in the form of delegated legislation. Therefore it is analagous to a local authority.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Member must allow me to develop my arguments. Democratic organisations such as local authorities meet and do not issue verbatim reports of their proceedings. Despite this, the public is aware of their decisions and no one has yet felt the need to call for verbatim reports.
The Assembly comes somewhere between the House of Commons and local authorities. It may be desirable for the Assembly to determine that it will issue a verbatim report of its main meetings, but this is a decision that we must leave to the Assembly to determine. After all, the whole argument is about devolution. Yet we are trying to hamstring the Assembly by laying down absolutely what it should do in all sorts of cases.
There is no verbatim report of the proceedings of certain Committees of the House of Commons. I serve on a Select Committee. The Services Committee, for instance, holds certain meetings of which verbatim reports are issued, but holds other meetings dealing with the services of the House of Commons at which Members discuss matters generally. Heaven forbid that we should add to the paperwork of the House of Commons by having verbatim reports of every bit of conversation that takes place in our Committees.
It is true that with Standing Committees on Bills, when legislation is affected and Ministers' decisions could have a great bearing on the eventual law of the land, one would argue that there is a great case for having a verbatim report. But just imagine if there were an Assembly Committee discussing the question of education allocations, attended by all the Members from various parts of Wales, and a Member from part of North Wales said that he thought that a school in his locality needed new toilets, and so on. There would be a long argument about minutiae in that Committee.
Opposition Members are saying that from these Committee proceedings, going into massive detail, just as they do now in local government, there should be a verbatim report of that nature, that it

should be published, and that it should be published at reasonable prices. That means, of course, that there will be no demand for such a publication and, therefore, that there must be a heavy subsidy. Are Opposition Members suggesting that all the minutiae in Committees should be published in verbatim form?

Sir Raymond Gower: Does the hon. Member agree that in the House of Commons and in another place all the proceedings are taken down and reproduced verbatim? The proceedings of the House of Commons, in this Chamber, in Committee in the Chamber or in any of the Standing Committees, are recorded verbatim and published in Hansard. Comparably, we say that the proceedings of the Assembly should be reproduced in that way. We are talking not about ad hoc discussions or interrogatory committees analogous to one or two of the Select Committees to which the hon. Member has referred, but about the proceedings.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Member may be talking about that, because his interpretation of what the new clause would do is very different. He has said that we should not decide the details, but as I read the new clause—
daily a verbatim report of its proceedings and of the proceedings of its Committees"—
it seems clear that it is a question not merely of the proceedings of the Assembly but of all the Committee proceedings being published verbatim. I can understand that there would be a good argument for having a verbatim report of the proceedings.

Mr. Brittan: I certainly had it in mind that the informal discussions of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman refers were not included in the term "proceedings". If I am wrong about that—there is no point in our arguing about it—it is not my intention that the informal discussions should be included in what is published. It may be appropriate to redraft the clause in some other form. It is the intention that the ordinary Committees, which are, after all, debating substantial matters, should have verbatim reports, though not the informal meetings of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If the new clause includes such meetings—frankly, I do not think that it does—I would certainly be happy to have it amended to exclude such deliberations.

Mr. Evans: I am glad that the hon, and learned Member makes that point. I am sure that he would agree with me that if we were to interpret the proceedings of the Committees and all the informal discussions that they will have as requiring a verbatim report, it would be an absolutely illogical situation because more paperwork would be coming from the Assembly than we get from the Common Market. I presume that the hon, and learned Member wishes to amend the new clause.

Mr. Brittan: I said not that I wished to amend it but that I wished to do so only if it bore that meaning. I do not think that the term "proceedings" would cover all the meetings to which the hon. Member has referred. However, rather than seek to argue what the word would be held to mean, I readily say that if I am wrong I would wish to amend it. However, I do not concede that that is necessary. I am simply trying to ensure that our deliberations are on the basic point rather than on a peripheral point of drafting.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Evans: The Opposition now take the point that there is no purpose in recording the minutiae of a committee on housing or education which might be of little interest even to other members of the Assembly. We should have simply a report to outline the decisions reached for the benefit of the general public.
I see that the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby is getting some help on the meaning of the word "proceedings" from the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman should have looked it up.

Mr. Evans: But the hon, and learned Gentleman has had to get a book to look it up, and he is a practising lawyer.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman can read, I suppose.

Mr. Evans: Of course I can. I am glad that we are to get a little legal assistance from the Liberal Party. We did not have much help from them in our last day's debate on this Bill.
One argument against an Assembly is administrative costs. The Conservative Party say that they are concerned about public expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian has estimated that the cost of reporting the House of Commons is £850,000. If the output of publications was the same, the cost of a bilingual system could be double that amount, and then there is the cost of translation.
Conservative Members may be devious and say that this is another argument against the Assembly. But we need not go into that. It is necessary to have a verbatim record of the main decisions of the Assembly itself, but not the committees. As politicians, we tend to speak at length, and as Welsh politicians we tend to speak at greater length. It would be wrong to give people in the Assembly an incentive to talk longer because their speeches will be reported and read in their localities. In local government, with no verbatim report, people address themselves to the point and reach decisions briefly.
Perhaps proceedings in the Assembly itself could be reported verbatim. If we are devolving powers to the Assembly, why not let it decide this?

Sir R. Gower: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the House of Commons should leave the question of what happens to large amounts of expenditure to be decided by the Assembly? Does he propose to curtail the speeches in the Assembly by ensuring that there is not enough money to publish a verbatim report?

Mr. Evans: It will be for the Assemblymen to determine the length of their speeches. It is a question of our making a definite block grant to the Assembly. There is no provision for the publication of a bilingual verbatim report of all the proceedings. I believe that reason will prevail in the Assembly and that the view will be taken, "There is a need for a verbatim report of certain proceedings, but it will be unnecessarily expensive to publish all the proceedings verbatim."
Obviously the Opposition are envisaging an Assembly that will be similar to the House of Commons, but I believe that it will be a different type of Assembly, especially if it is intended to undertake


its work on a committee basis in determining the various allocations on social services and other items of expenditure.
The Assembly will not be a fund-raising Assembly. Its main function will be to act as a spending authority in allocating funds. It will be a question of how the Assembly allocates the main block grant to the various committees and how those committees allocate the funds to different parts of Wales. I believe that in the Assembly one will not have the same type of decisions that are arrived at in, say, the Committee system in this House. Indeed, the type of committee in the Assembly will be very different. Therefore, I do not think a verbatim report of the committee proceedings will be necessary.
There has also been mention of a daily report. Do we envisage the work of the Assembly as a daily occurrence? Surely that is a presumption which we should leave to the Assembly.
I hope that the Government will resist this clause. It will involve massive public expenditure. If there is to be no additional grant, that expenditure must be at the expense of other forms of public expenditure which are greatly needed in Wales at the present time.

Mr. Ian Gow: One of the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) in opposing the clause related to the matter of expense. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman hung his whole speech on that aspect of the matter.
I invite the Committee to consider the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill. In that memorandum we are told that the initial capital cost of establishing the Welsh Assembly will be £4 million. That is a once-for-all expenditure. We then see on page v. of the memorandum that the annual costs of running the Assembly will be £12·5 million. I respectfully suggest that that is likely to be a grievous underestimate. It is most rare for Ministers of the Crown to advise Parliament that there will be public expenditure amounting to £x which actually turns out to be £x. It will be £x plus 20 per cent. in the first year, and so the cost will escalate. Therefore, there is no realistic ground for objecting to the clause on account of the proposed cost.
In deciding whether there should be a daily verbatim report of its proceedings the Committee should examine the importance of the Assembly. My hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) said that he hoped that the Bill would never reach the statute book, but if it does we are entitled to take at its face value the importance that the Secretary of State and the Government attach to the Bill.
The view of the Treasury Bench is that the Bill is of supreme importance for the future government of the Principality and that the future unity of the United Kingdom will be enhanced by the passage of the Bill. The fact that my right hon, and hon. Friends and I take the opposite view, believing that the passing of the Bill into law will be damaging to the good government of Wales and most damaging to the unity of the United Kingdom, is not relevant when we are considering the new clause, since the new clause is introduced on the basis that the Bill will reach the statute book.
The Treasury Bench tells the Committee that the Assembly will be of crucial importance and that its deliberations will be of momentous consequence for the government of the Principality, and it is in that context that we have to consider the new clause.
What is said in the Bill about the Assembly? Is it to be a trifling body, like a county council or district council? Not so, in the Government's view, for although proclaimed in Clause 2(1) we find this stark sentence—
There shall be a Welsh Assembly"—
the powers to be accorded to it under Clauses 10 to 14 are very substantial.
When a new Assembly is to be set up, at an annual cost of £12½ million, with all the solemnity of an Act of Parliament, we are entitled to say, as did my hon, and learned Friend, that there should be a daily verbatim report of its proceedings, a report for the benefit not only of the Assemblymen but of those—no doubt, the Secretary of State believes that they will be many—who will be queueing up to learn what the Welsh Assembly is discussing.
I happen not to agree with the Secretary of State when he says that there will be an immense demand for a daily verbatim report of the proceedings of the


Welsh Assembly. Indeed, I wonder to what extent there is a great public demand for a daily verbatim report of the proceedings of this Committee and of the House, but we have it as part of our procedure that there is such a daily verbatim report.
It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Aberdare that under Clause 16 there is power for the Assembly itself to decide these matters, but it is our case that we cannot leave that to the judgment of the Assembly, for it would be open to the Assembly to decide to have or not to have a daily verbatim report of its proceedings, and we wish to write into the Bill a provision that it be obligatory on the new Assembly to have this daily verbatim report. We cannot leave it to the judgment of the Assembly itself.
It would be incredible if the Minister were to tell us that the Government will resist the new clause. After all, we have heard again and again, notably from the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), and even from his successor, that

the Labour Party is the party of open government. The Government say that they want to give the people of the United Kingdom a greater chance to see how government in its deliberative and executive forms is carried on. How, then, would it be consistent for the Secretary of State to resist a new clause which gives effect to precisely the policy that has been enunciated over and over again by the Prime Minister and his predecessor?
10.0 p.m.
We come, as we have so often during these debates, to a clash between the professed policy of the Government and the actual conduct of Ministers. If Ministers are right in believing that the Assembly is of such key importance and that only by the setting up of this Assembly shall we have good government and pre serve the unity of the United Kingdom—though that would be a profoundly mistaken belief—the Treasury Bench ought to accept with acclamation and enthusiasm the new clause, and the Minister should clasp my hon, and learned Friend to his bosom.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has demonstrated again the ambivalent attitude of the Conservative Opposition towards the Bill. He has said that we must adopt the Government's assessment of the importance of the Assembly and that we must therefore have daily reports of its proceedings. I think that he is right. It is important that the proceedings of the Welsh Assembly should be reported.
The Assembly will be a valuable step for Wales. I do not believe that the Bill goes far enough. It does not sufficiently divide the powers between the Welsh Assembly and the House of Commons. We are debating the first step in devolution. I totally disagree with the nationalistic approach. There is no point in having separate nation States in the latter part of the twentieth century. I view the devolution movement as being complementary to a much greater movement towards European unity and so on. The day of the nation State is already over. We go through the requiem masses in the House. We did so on the EEC Bill and we are doing so on the devolution Bills.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: rose—

Mr. Hooson: The new clause says:
The Assembly shall publish daily a verbatim report of its proceedings and of the proceedings of its Committees and shall place such reports on public sale at reasonable prices".
Nobody can quarrel about the term "reasonable prices". I am sure that even the Government will agree with that part of the proposition.
The question is whether they should accept the proposition in the new clause that the House of Commons should lay down that the Assembly should publish its proceedings. I think that it should be a requirement. One of the key functions of the Assembly will be educative. We have not had a popular Assembly in Wales. Many people over the centuries have dreamed of an organisation representing Wales as a whole. If the Assembly comes into effect, it will be the first such organisation. It is important that the proceedings of the Assembly should be properly reported. I give way now to the right hon. Member for

Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), who tried to intervene earlier.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon, and learned Gentleman is kind to give way, but the relevant moment has passed. I am intervening to say that requiem masses in Wales finished in 1735.

Mr. Hooson: The right hon. Gentleman has an unrivalled knowledge of Welsh history and Welsh spirituality. I was addressing my remarks to whether the House should lay down that the Welsh Assembly's proceedings should be reported. I think that its proceedings should be reported, because it would be a very bad day for Wales if the Assembly decided in its earlier meetings either that it could not afford to publish or, for other reasons would not publish its proceedings. This would be a retrograde step and the Welsh Assembly would start off on the wrong foot. It may do so from ignorance rather than any intention to prevent the people of Wales or elsewhere knowing of its proceedings.
The objection of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) to the new clause was based entirely on the cost. He relied on the practice of this House and said that certain proceedings, for example, in a Select Committee when the public is excluded and the Committee discusses various important matters before going on with its formal proceedings, were not reported even to the House. He is correct, but "Erskine May" includes a definition of the term "proceedings in Parliament". It says:
The primary meaning, as a technical parliamentary term, of "proceedings" (which it had at least as early at the seventeenth century) is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the House in its collective capacity. This is naturally extended to the forms of business in which the House takes action, and the whole process, the principal part of which is debate, by which it reaches a decision.
Normally, the informal discussions to which the hon. Member for Aberdare referred are not proceedings of the House. He need not worry on that point.
The reporting of Parliament by way of Hansard evolved during the 19th century. No formal decision was taken to achieve this end. Even the Manual of Procedure of the House says:
A record of the proceedings of the House each day, compiled mainly from the minutes taken by the clerks at the table, but containing


in addition a record of the public petitions and papers presented to the House, is distributed in a printed form next morning and is entitled the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.
Whereas there is formal provision for that, Hansard has evolved naturally and I am not aware of any formal provision concerning the production of Hansard.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon, and learned Gentleman is quoting "Erskine May", which defines the proceedings for this Assembly. The Welsh Assembly has not yet formulated its standing orders and it could define its proceedings in a different way from our definition.
For example, Committee proceedings in local authorities are regarded differently from our deliberations. The new clause could be taken by the Assembly to provide that reports of all its deliberations should be published. The Minister tried to clarify this point and if the Opposition want the new clause to be passed, it will be necessary, for the benefit of the Assembly, for us to define "proceedings".

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman takes a dim view of his countrymen. He seems to think that members of the Assembly will be stupid. Even if we passed no amendment, the Assembly would regard the interpretation of the word "proceedings" by this House at least as a strong persuasive authority. It would be equally possible, if the amendment were accepted, for the Government to include a definition of "proceedings" in the Bill. That may be a consequential amendment. There is no difficulty about that.

Mr. Brittan: Would not the hon, and learned Member agree that no problem arises, because what we are enacting is a measure of this Parliament and therefore the definition of proceedings of an Act of the Westminster Parliament must incorporate the practice and definitions used in the House of Commons which would therefore be binding on the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Hooson: I am not sure that I would go along with the hon, and learned Gentleman on that matter. His argument has great persuasive authority. I come to the central point which is whether the House of Commons should lay down that the proceedings of the Welsh Assembly

should be reported verbatim. I think that we should do this. We should give the Welsh Assembly complete guidance on this. It is important that the Assembly should not start off, as a few people might be tempted to start it off, as a rather secretive body. It is important that its proceedings be open and reported for all to see.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I do not disagree generally with what the hon, and learned Gentleman is saying. There is one important aspect in all of this which he has omitted to mention—namely, the last few words of the clause:
on public sale at reasonable prices.
I wonder whether he has discussed this with the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), to whom this would be a pertinent and central aspect.

Mr. Hooson: As the right hon. Member well knows, what is a reasonable price in Montgomeryshire is always regarded as an unreasonable price in Cardiganshire. I am glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman has got himself beyond the early eighteenth century. I am sure that he agrees that it is right that the Welsh Assembly proceedings should be reported daily. I am glad to see him nodding assent. I hope that the Secretary of State will say that he is in favour of the new clause or something along these lines.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: It may not be appropriate for anyone who does not speak the language of the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) to intervene in this debate. I regret to say to my hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan)—whom I congratulate on reaching the same status as myself and the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery—that I could not support this new clause.
The hon, and learned Member for Montgomery began by telling us that he did not approve of requiem masses. I would have thought that they were something about which the Liberal Party knew a great deal and represented a subject which should not be mentioned by it. He told us that his party was in favour of nation States, a subject which it keeps raising. He also told us, I think, that it was important that we should know


what has happened in the Welsh Assembly.
If there is one thing that the broadcasting of Parliament has demonstrated it is that a little ignorance of what is happening in these Assemblies might be preferable. A verbatim report of the proceedings of the proposed Welsh Assembly could never be on sale to the public at a reasonable price unless the public were charged an unreasonable price to produce it by way of taxation. It would cost a great deal of money to produce. We have to be responsible in Parliament if we are not to engage in humbug. If we were to produce all the verbiage which would come out of the Welsh Assembly—and the Scottish Assembly, God help us—it would cost a great deal of money. Presumably, in a mixed economy and with this Government, people would have to pay about one and a half times the cost of the publication so that there could be a profit.
I should have thought that it would be a very expensive document to produce. I do not want to insult the Welsh but I cannot imagine that even those who are sitting on the nationalist Benches will be queueing up at Her Majesty's Stationery Office with a £5 note and saying in Welsh "Please may I have a copy of yesterday's proceedings in the Welsh Assembly?".

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does the hon, and learned Gentleman think that the verbiage which is now issuing from him, and which will be published tomorrow, will be worth buying?

Mr. Fairbairn: No, I do not think it is worth buying, and I am trying to illustrate the absurdity of compounding the felony in Wales.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon, and learned Gentleman's accent was pretty poor.

Mr. Fairbairn: Let us be absolutely clear. This will be a very expensive, unnecessary and absurd operation. That is what I worry about, and I am sorry that I cannot support my hon, and learned Friend in this proposition.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I shall not follow in detail the remarks of the hon, and learned

Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn).
When the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) began his speech, I had a measure of sympathy with him when he spoke of what he was seeking to do and sought to explain the need for it. The basis of his case is that we should ensure that there is public confidence in a democratic Assembly of this kind, and that the publication of a verbatim report of the proceedings would be a material factor in relation to that confidence.
That is not really the issue before us tonight. We are concerned here with whether we should insert into the Bill a provision for the reporting of the proceedings of the Assembly and its committees. It is not a question whether it should happen but whether we should provide for it. That is the issue.
The hon, and learned Gentleman was perfectly right in saying that some ground rules are set out in the Bill, but in fact there are very few, indeed. It is important to get the Assembly going. It is important in regard to the involvement of Members. But one is seeking to provide the bare minimum for the Assembly by way of our seeking in the House of Commons to write into the Bill and to anticipate how the Assembly should conduct its business. I shall put the Committee out of its misery immediately by saying that very shortly, having heard the argument, I shall be advising the Committee to resist the amendment.
The hon, and learned Gentleman was perfectly right in saying that the Assembly will not operate in vacuo. The basis of my approach is that we should not legislate for this in the House of Commons but that it should be left to the Assembly. I have never in my experience known politicians to hide their lights under a bushel. That may be the experience of some other hon. Members but it is certainly not my experience in this House. I believe that hon. Members are delighted to be recorded in Hansard and elsewhere as fully as possible so that the whole world will know of their good deeds and activities. I believe, therefore, that it is right to take into account—adopting the words of the hon, and learned Gentleman—that the Assembly will be operating not in vacua but in the full glare of the public eye. Members of the Assembly


will want to ensure, within reasonable bounds, that the maximum number of people are aware of what is happening in the Welsh Assembly. That is my approach to the problem.
The hon, and learned Member was also right when he said that where the line should be drawn is a matter of judgment. That is where my judgment lies. I believe that we should seek to write in the bare minimum of requirements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) demolished the argument about other democratic Assemblies with substantial powers in this country. Some of them are very large, indeed. I do not know the exact figures for the Strathclyde Regional Council in Scotland, but I suspect that the population there is very significant and, perhaps, not too far removed from the Welsh position. It does not render an Assembly undemocratic if there is not a verbatim report of its proceedings.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does the right hon, and learned Gentleman recall that at one time a number of local authorities up and down the country intended to keep the Press from their proceedings? It was necessary at that time for a private Member to introduce a Bill—which was passed through this House and enacted—making it compulsory for all local authorities to allow the Press into their proceedings, unless they passed a special resolution for some special reason. If it was necessary in the case of local authorities at that time, I submit with great respect that it is just as necessary now.

Mr. Morris: Given that local authorities are now obliged under that particular enactment to conduct their proceedings in public, I should have thought it inconceivable that an Assembly of this kind—with regard to the majority of its deliberations—would seek to behave in any way whereby its proceedings were not carried out in the full glare of publicity. I would expect that argument to be untenable in this day and age.
Fortunately, it is not for me to define the words contained in the new clause. I am grateful to the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) for his help with regard to the word "proceedings". It is for the Conservative

Party to seek to define what it means, If I am wrong, I can be corrected but it was not my impression that the Conservative Party was seeking to contain the need to publish to merely a collation of the decisions of the Assembly.

Mr. Brittan: That is not what the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) was saying.

Mr. Morris: No, that is not what he was saying. He was giving assistance to the Committee on the basis of his understanding of what the proceedings in Parliament, as a term, meant. The new clause contains the words "verbatim report of proceedings". It was not my impression that that was the intention of the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery, but I thought it was the intention of the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby that there should be a verbatim report of, I presume, every word uttered, certainly in the formal part of the Assembly.
But there is a difference between the technical word "proceedings" and the words "verbatim report of proceedings", as I understand them, which are contained in the new clause.

Mr. Costain: I am sure that the right hon, and learned Gentleman will appreciate that a new Assembly of this sort will have to build up a series of orders and regulations. Is he suggesting that, rather than have official proceedings which are published, it should rely on the Morning Star, the Cardiff papers, or the Welsh papers? Who will be the official reporter who will build up the precedents on which the Chairman of the Assembley will make rulings in future? Is it not absurd that we should rely on the Morning Star to give Socialist Members a good write-up?

Mr. Morris: I have not suggested that. I have said that it would be unreasonable in this day and age to propose that the Assembly would not wish to have its proceedings reported with the maximum possible publicity. I say that it is for the Assembly to decide the form and the manner in which its proceedings should be reported.
It has not ben suggested that we should lay down that the Assembly should broadcast its activities. Why draw the line there? The hon, and learned Member


for Montgomery said that this was a matter of judgment. Why not provide in the Bill that if the House of Commons decides to broadcast its proceedings, the Assembly should be obliged to do the same? Why not write into the Bill the provision that if the House of Commons decides to televise its proceedings, the Assembly should do the same? Why not write the whole lot into the Bill if that is regarded by the House of Commons as right? It is a matter of judgment.
These matters should not be inserted in legislation. They should be left to the Assembly. It will be comprised of politicians with the strength and possibly the failings of politicians generally, and they will seek the maximum possible publicity for their remarks.
As I understand the new clause, it requires that there should be a verbatim report of all the proceedings of the Assembly's Committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare was right to say that a line might have to be drawn. It is no good relying on the technical meaning of the word "proceedings". I am sure that the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery would not wish to do that. If the words
verbatim report of its proceedings
mean anything, they mean that whenever a Committee is properly called and meets, it must be reported, even when the occation is trivial. They mean that every word of the proceedings should be published.
It is not for me to define the words "verbatim report". What on earth do they mean? To me they mean putting down, presumably in some document, every word that is uttered in any Committee which is properly constituted. There is no other meaning.

Mr. Hooson: The Secretary of State surely is wrong about this. If the term "proceedings" does not include the informal discussion that takes place in the course of a meeting of a Committee—certainly in this House it does not—the verbatim report of proceedings cannot include informal discussions.

Mr. Morris: It is not for me to define "proceedings". We have not heard a word about the meaning of "verbatim report". Frankly, I do not know what is meant by "informal proceedings". When

a Committee, whether it deals with a major or a minor subject, is properly constituted and has a chairman, it has discussions. Where does one draw the line? A Finance Committee which discusses the Budget is a Committee of this House. Is anyone to suggest that one can draw the line in legislation between informal proceedings and the proceedings of the Committee? There are no such words in the clause.
10.30 p.m.
The impression I gained from the way in which the hon, and learned Gentleman opened the debate was that he wanted the maximum publicity and believed that to that end words uttered in the course of a Committee's proceedings should be recorded verbatim and published. In my view, it would be wholly wrong for us to seek to crib, cabin and confine the Assembly in any way over such matters, whether over its reports, broadcasting, television or whatever. We should leave it to its good sense.
I shall not enter into the argument over what is a reasonable price. I come from the county of Cardigan, like the hon. Member who represents it. Our understanding of a reasonable price might well differ from that of the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery, who is a more generous and fairer man in all these respects. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) and I take a more narrow, restricted and realistic view. The hon. Gentleman also has his roots firmly grounded in a most important part of Wales. Is a reasonable price to be the economic cost of the publication, or the price the average consumer is likely to be willing to pay? There would be a statutory obligation to publish daily, whatever the printing or other difficulties that may occur, as we have seen from time to time here.
One accepts that the Assembly and its Committees will be operating in the full realisation of the need to ensure that the public know what they are doing, so they will seek as best they can to see that as many as possible of their debates are reported. My advice to the Committee is that it is best left to them.

Mr. Brittan: The Secretary of State made much play in the middle of his


remarks with the fact that I had said in opening the debate that the question of a verbatim report was a matter of judgment. The rhetorical flourishes with which he thought it appropriate to garnish the latter part of his speech suggested that he was trying to persuade the Committee that when he himself said it was a matter of judgment his judgment must be right and everyone else's wrong. That is a most unsound proposition to rely on, to judge by what has been said.
I am not pretending that a deep question of principle arises as to the precise point at which we cease delimiting how the Assembly should operate and leave it to the Assembly. But although I have said that it is a matter of judgment, the debate has brought out, as so often such debates do, one of the central features of the Bill and the problems relating to it—that the Secretary of State and the Government are trying to have their cake and eat it.
The problem arises most often in the analogies with local government. On the one hand, the Secretary of State wants to say that the Assembly is like local government but, on the other hand, he says that it is not. In minuscule, a charming little vignette of an illustration of exactly this ambivalent attitude was displayed here in relation to the reports. On the one hand, it is like local government in that a local authority decides whether reports of its proceedings should be published and in what form—whether verbatim and whether contemporary, and whether they should be full. In that respect the Secretary of State is content to regard the Welsh Assembly as if it were an arm of local government which was to be given the authority to decide how important it was to publish what was going on in its deliberations and in what form.
Another analogy with local government turns out to be less convenient and, therefore, less welcome to the right hon, and learned Gentleman. Local government is by law required, except in prescribed circumstances, to have its deliberations open to the public. That sort of provision does not appear in the Bill. There is no legal requirement on the Assembly to sit in public. There is no legal requirement on its Committees to sit in public. Is the right hon, and learned Gentleman prepared to be consistent and

go the whole way, saying "The local authority must decide how much to publish of its proceedings; so shall it be with the Assembly. On the other hand, the local authority is obliged to sit in public except in certain prescribed circumstances; so shall it be with the Assembly"? If the right hon, and learned Gentleman, whose Bill it is, had procured within it a clause requiring the Assembly to sit in public, it would lie in his mouth to say that with that protection there is no need for any detailed legislative requirement as to reports. However, he has not done that.
I cannot answer a hypothetical question, but it may be that if the right hon, and learned Gentleman had procured a clause requiring the Assembly to sit in public, we would not have thought it necessary to table a clause of this sort. However, he has done no such thing. He cannot come along and with one eye shut and the other open tell us that the Assembly is like a local authority that decides how much of its proceedings should be reported and how much should not and completely to fail to say that it is totally unlike a local authority because there is no requirement that it should sit in public. That seems sufficient in itself to demolish in principle the case that he was making against the substance of the clause.
The rest of the right hon, and learned Gentleman's remarks consisted of nitpicking of a rather unworthy sort when it is borne in mind that I made it clear to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) what was intended by the clause, and that if it were thought in any way not to convey that intention, I should be happy to take it away and to accept from the parliamentary draftsmen, who are employed in droves by the Government, a better version of it. If the right hon, and learned Gentleman had accepted the argument but added "I am unhappy about the definition of 'proceedings'; let me see whether I can do something better". I assure the Committee that my pride of ownership and authorship would not have been so great as to withstand such an alluring invitation. However, instead we have had nitpicking on the meaning of "proceedings".
The hon, and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has performed a service to the Committee by making it


clear that there is authority for the meaning of the word. That authority is to be found in "Erskine May". If a statute talks about the "proceedings" of an Assembly, any body that has to construe the meaning of the word would do so in the context of the proceedings of the House of Commons as defined by "Erskine May". There would be no trouble about that.
If there is thought to be any difficulty about it, I shall be happy that there should be a further refinement in the form of an definition clause stating that for the purposes of the new clause "proceedings" shall have the same meaning as the proceedings of the House of Commons. That would leave it without any doubt that"Erskine May was the authoritative source to consult for that definition.
It is slightly unworthy of the right hon, and learned Gentleman behind the rhetoric and verbiage to take refuge with such an argument. However, he does so and we have to take it seriously. At this stage I shall seek leave to withdraw the clause in its present form, remaining wholly unconvinced by the spurious argument put forward against the substance of it, but recognising the need to ensure that if the Committee is to be invited to enact it, it should be in a form in which it cannot be challenged beyond peradventure. It is in that spirit alone that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. I reserve the right to return to the matter at an appropriate time.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause No. 10

ASSEMBLY'S FURTHER EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS

'(1) In addition to those functions which it shall exercise by virtue of section 10 above, the Assembly shall exercise as regards Wales such other functions given to Ministers of the Crown by or under Public and General Acts, as the Secretary of State may by order specify.
(2) An order under this section may contain such consequential, incidental and supplementary provisions (including provisions for the exercise of the powers with the concurrence or subject to the consent or approval of, or after consulting with, a Minister of the Crown) as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
(3) A statutory instrument under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'—[Mr. Wigley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause deals with the question of the transfer of functions, particularly the transfer of activities within functions, to the Welsh Assembly at points in time after it has been set up. The question of transferring areas of competence to the Assembly is likely to face us after the Assembly has come into existence.
We can draw on the analogy of what has happened in the history of the Welsh Office over the last 14 years since it was set up. The Welsh Office started with relatively few areas of competence. Gradually, over the years, functions have been transferred to it. The most recent was on 1st April—the transfer of responsibility for agriculture and for colleges of education in Wales. Devolution in terms of the Welsh Office has been an on going process.
I should not imagine that anyone on the Government Front Bench would think that the powers that have been given to the Welsh Assembly and the spheres within which it can use those powers have been defined categorically once and for all and that there may not in future he any need to consider whether other powers need to be transferred. I am sure that within the first two or three years of operation of the Assembly a number of such instances will arise.
It is interesting to note that the Government are to move that a number of powers and spheres of responsibility be included in the Bill. Clearly, they have come across these amendments in the time since the first draft of the Bill was drawn and the latest point at which they had the opportunity to consider these matters. In other words, the more attention that is given to these questions, the clearer it becomes whether some activities are needed and others perhaps are not. I should have thought that the Government needed to have this type of responsibility, and the new clause attempts to define the mechanism by which transfers can take place.
We note that the Government have already built into Clause 14 a mechanism whereby powers under local Acts can be transferred. We have suggested in the new clause that the mechanism for the transfer of public and general Acts should be similar. We have built in the same provisos, safeguards and courses of action


as the Government deem necessary in Clause 14 for the powers under local Acts. Therefore, I should have thought that the mechanism for undertaking these transfers would be acceptable to the Government in the form that we have proposed in the new clause.
I can think of some areas which perhaps very early on the Assembly and the Government—this Government or any other Government—might feel they would need to transfer. Earlier we discussed the question of the Boundary Commission in relation to local government. At the moment, responsibility for that remains at Westminster. But many forceful arguments were put forward for the transfer of that function. I should have thought that in due course the Government would feel that that was likely.
There may also be omissions which the Government stumble across quickly. For instance, the Government indicated that they would accept amendments that we put forward relating to the Dinorwic hydro-electric scheme. I am sure that other such instances will come to light as experience takes us along the road. Therefore, I should have thought that the Government will need a mechanism of the sort that we are putting forward.
10.45 p.m.
I imagine that the alternative must be the need for a Wales Act (Amendment) Bill every time this type of transfer is required. I suggest that this is a rather cumbersome way of trying to facilitate the transfers of what may be non-contentious issues and that it would be more easily undertaken in the manner proposed in the new clause.
The new clause allows for continued control by Parliament. Subsection (3) provides that in the same way as for the local Acts. It says:
A statutory instrument under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament
—as in Clause 14. We have taken the same wording there, although we have reservations about the House of Lords, to make sure that that in itself is not the stumbling block on this question.
The new clause is to some extent a probing clause in that looking at Clause 80 we see certain provisions for the transfer of certain realms of activities. But

Clause 80 suggests that these are confined to those defined in Schedule 11, and I should have thought that that does not go far enough to meet the examples which I have given.
For that reason, I should be grateful to the Under-Secretary if he could indicate whether it is the Government's thinking that there is already a mechanism in existence for such transfers within the Bill, or whether, if such transfers are to be required in the future, the matter would be handled, as the Government see it, by means of a Wales Act (Amendment) Bill.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I hope that the Government will resist the new clause, although the hon. Member has said that it is just a probing clause. The fear that we have in Wales relates to the slippery slope theory—that whatever is done to create an Assembly in Wales, there will never be satisfaction on the part of Plaid Cymru until we have established a separate political and economic Wales.
Therefore, I look upon this so-called probing new clause with foreboding, because we have not yet put the issue to the people of Wales in the many powers that have been devolved already in the Bill, under which numerous powers which are exercised by Welsh Members in the House of Commons will no longer be exercised by those Members and are to be devolved to the Assembly. Yet before the issue has been put to the people of Wales, here we have a new clause which states that, in addition to those functions which the Assembly shall exercise by right, as laid down in the Bill, other powers may be transferred to it.
My fear about the Assembly is that as soon as it is set up and starts to deal with those subjects that have been devolved by this Parliament, we shall encounter the slippery slope. I agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about so much, but he said that there would be no stopping the Assembly talking about foreign affairs or defence and setting up Committees to go into a whole range of subjects. I thought that Members of this House would be dealing with certain subjects that would not be dealt with by the Assembly, but during the course of the proceedings this evening we have understood that in Wales Committees will be dealing with a number of


subjects and that their deliberations will range far and wide.
When we were dealing with the previous new clause, I wondered whether Opposition Members took on board the fact that there would be long debates on foreign policy in the Assembly, and long debates on whether we should have the neutron bomb in Wales—and there we would have the best seller on the bookshelves in Wales, "What Shall We Do With The Welsh Neutron Bomb?", and there would be arguments as to that.
The Government might have been thinking that their devolution proposals would be enough, but already Plaid Cymru is preparing for the devolution of additional powers. I hope that the new clause will be resisted: enough is enough. The Bill as it stands is too much, in my view, and we must prevent further encroachments. I am beginning to wonder what hon. Members representing Wales will do if the Bill goes through, but if any further powers are devolved, we shall be like representatives in another place. There will be hardly any matters to deal with concerning the people of Wales. I hope that the Government will tell the nationalists clearly that this is not on.

Mr. Brittan: It is apparent from the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) that the innocent presentation of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has failed totally to convince the Committee that this new clause is innocuous. I endorse what the hon. Member for Aberdare said. This is a dangerous proposal which should be resisted. It would permit the Secretary of State to transfer powers to the Assembly well beyond anything proposed in the Bill, the only check being the negative procedure. With the difficulties of praying against any Statutory Instrument, that would provide little protection.
We have enough difficulty in reaching agreement on whether there should be an Assembly and on what its powers should be. To suggest the transfer of further powers on these terms is a fantastic proposition which should be resisted. If the Welsh nationalists wish to persuade the Committee and the country to grant further devolution, they will have to do so openly. There is no chance of the Committee being taken in by sleight of hand in this covert way. It is wholly to be resisted and deplored.

Mr. Alec Jones: I am surprised to be in the same bed as the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). This is practically the only time throughout the Committee stage that I have been in that company. The Government certainly would not recommend accepting the new clause. Whatever one's views of the proposal—whether it is called backdoor devolution or the slippery slope—it does not commend itself to the Government.
The functions to be devolved were not chosen at random. All the functions of government which affect Wales were examined in depth, after consultation with a variety of bodies throughout Wales. The Bill is the result.
We believe that the Bill provides the most workable arrangement because the transfer of functions is a matter of major significance. Therefore, it was essential for there to be primary legislation. We believe that that will be the case in future if such circumstances arise.
It is true that it is possible to envisage circumstances which might arise in future whereby the Government of the day, whatever Government that may be, might wish to confer additional ministerial functions on the Assembly. But that would be a major decision and on those matters Parliament would be handing over its control to the Assembly. Therefore, we believe that if there were to be any such extension at all, it should be implemented only by primary legislation so that Parliament would have the opportunity to consider the issues more fully than would be the case under a ministrial order.
We are not prepared to accept new Clause No. 10. I appreciate that the nationalists, having lost the amendment seeking to grant legislative powers to the Assembly, may regard this clause as a consolation prize. I am delighted to say to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that that sort of consolation prize will not be offered this evening.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister clarify one matter? If under the powers of Schedule 2 it is found that there is some enactment that is needed to be included, or some excluded function that is not intended to be excluded by the nature of the way in which the provision is drawn up, is there any mechanism which the


Government can use to overcome the fact that that provision is not contained in the Bill, other than by introducing an amending Bill?

Mr. Alec Jones: I understand that there are a number of subsequent Government amendments which are of a technical drafting nature—for example, Government Amendment No. 109, which deals with the Burial Acts, and others which deal with a limited number of Orders in Council. We have sought to examine all those matters and we believe that we have many of them "in the net" as it were. We believe that the transfer of functions is so important that it should be discussed by Parliament and that it should not be tucked away in a miniserial order.

Sir Raymond Gower: I hardly believe that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) expected the clause to be accepted, because it goes greatly beyond the present Bill. It would mean adding some vital functions which the Government have deemed necessary in connection with the economic unity of the United Kingdom. The functions which have been devolved go a very long way as it is. The fears expressed in many parts of the Principality and elsewhere about the Bill would be exacerbated if the public in general thought that there was power in this Bill to slip in new functions without any further legislation.
The functions that remain would be vital and connected with the economic unity of this country. If purely by ministerial order we could add those functions to those which have already been devolved, we should be on the slippery slope described by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). I am glad that the Government and Opposition take this view about the proposal.

Mr. Dalyell: It is a piece of fortuitous good luck that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who is here to discuss the Phillimore Report, is with us tonight.
Last week he told us how we were dealing with reasonable people, people who behave rationally, people who would act within the limits of the Assembly.

I ask him to examine New Clause No. 10. Let him consider from the Temple, or from wherever he operates, how an Assembly would work legally. My right hon. and learned Friend is the fount of all wisdom, but when it comes to politics, we have only to examine the matter to realise that the Assembly will want more and more and more.
The clause reveals yet again that there are people who would go to the Assembly and who by definition could never be satisfied—

It being Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [1st March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed front the Chair.

Question negatived.

The Chairman: I am now required under the allocation of time order to put the Question on all Government amendments to Schedule 11. These amendments are numbered as follows: Nos. 109, 298, 207, 299, 362, 363, 211, 110, 113 and 114.
Unless there is objection, I propose to put the Question on all of them en bloc.

Schedule 11

AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS

Amendments made: No. 109, in page 71, line 21, at end insert—

'THE BURIAL ACTS 1853, 1855 AND 1857

(1) The powers conferred on Her Majesty in Council by—

(a) section 1 of the Burial Act 1853;
(b) section 1 of the Burial Act 1855;
(c) section 10 of the Burial Act 1857;
(d) section 23 of the Burial Act 1857;

shall as regards Wales be exercisable instead by the Assembly by order made by statutory instrument; and except where the context otherwise requires references in any enactment to Orders in Council made under any of those sections shall be construed as including references to orders so made by the Assembly.

(2) The provisions of section 1 of the Burial Act 1853 and sections 10 and 23 of the Burial Act 1857 concerning representations shall not have effect in relation to orders of the Assembly; but the like notices shall be given of a proposal that an order be made by the Assembly under any of those sections as is required in the case of a representation under that section.'.

No. 298, in page 71, line 21, at end insert—

'THE ANCIENT MONUMENTS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT ACT 1913

The powers conferred on Her Majesty in Council by sections 14(4) and 15(2) of the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act 1913 shall in relation respectively to monuments in Wales and the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales be exercisable instead by the Assembly by order made by statutory instrument; but the Assembly shall not charge a committee with the exercise of its powers under section 15(2)'.

No. 207, in page 71, line 25, at end insert—

"THE ACQUISITION OF LAND (AUTHORISATION PROCEDURE) ACT 1946

1A. In paragraph 7B of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2)(a) and (3)(a) after the word 'powers' there shall be inserted the words 'in respect of land in England'; and
(b) in sub-paragraph (6), the words 'or Wales, as the case may be' shall be omitted.".

No. 299, in page 73, line 4, at end insert—

"THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND ANCIENT MONUMENTS ACT 1953

8A. Section 1(3) of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 shall have effect in its application (by virtue of section 3(2)) to the Historic Buildings Council for Wales as if the second reference to the House of Commons included a reference to the Assembly".

No. 362, in page 73, line 16, at end insert—

"THE OPENCAST COAL ACT 1958

11A. After subsection (1) of section 2 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 there shall be inserted—
'(1 A) The Minister shall not give a direction under this section in relation to land in Wales unless—

(a) he has, at least 28 days previously, given notice of the proposed direction to the Welsh Assembly, or
(b) the Welsh Assembly has informed him of its agreement to the giving of the proposed direction or to the giving of directions of a class that includes the proposed direction'.".

No. 363, in page 73, line 16, at end insert—

"THE PIPE-LINES ACT 1962

11 B. After subsection (1) of section 5 of the Pipe-lines Act 1962 there shall be inserted—
'(1A) The Minister shall not give a direction under this section in relation to land in Wales unless—


(a) he has, at least 28 days previously, given notice of the proposed direction to the Welsh Assembly, or
(b) the Welsh Assembly has informed him of its agreement to the giving of the proposed direction or to the giving of directions of a class that includes the proposed direction'.".

No. 211, in page 73, leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert—
'13. Section 54(4) of that Act shall have effect as if it provided for the appropriate Minister alone to determine the question whether land in Wales of excepted statutory undertakers in operational land.'.

No. 110, in page 75, line 26, at end insert—

'22A.—(1) The powers conferred on Her Majesty in Council by sections 17 and 18 of that Act shall in relation to establishments in Wales be exercisable instead by the Assembly by order made by statutory instrument.
(2) The Assembly shall not charge a committee with the exercise of its powers under those sections.
(3) Those sections shall have effect in relation to orders made by the Assembly as if—

(a) references to the Wales Tourist Board were substituted in paragraph (a) of section 17(3) for the references to the British Tourist Authority;
(b) the consultation referred to in that paragraph did not include consultation with other Tourist Boards; and
(c) the provisions of section 17(4) relating to regulations, and the provision for annulment made by section 17(6), were omitted.'.

No. 113, in page 76, line 16, at end insert—

'THE FINANCE ACT 1972

26A. In section 19(4) of the Finance Act 1972 before the words "and any part" there shall be inserted the words "or of the Welsh Assembly".'.

No. 114, in page 81, line 9, at end insert—

'THE FINANCE ACT 1975

69A. In paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975, before the entry beginning "Any university" there shall be inserted the words "The Welsh Assembly".'.—[Mr. Alec Jones.]

Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.

Whereupon The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended to the House, pursuant to Order [16th November].

Bill reported, with amendments: as amended, to be considered tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

Orders of the Day — COMMUNITY SERVICE BY OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL

The following motion stood upon the Order Paper:
That the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with as if it had been certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I think that the House is entitled to some explanation of this motion, as it relates to an important Bill and to the fact that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is objecting, because the Question must be dealt with forthwith.

Mr. Rhodes James: Surely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the House is entitled to some brief explanation of the Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has been agreed."] It has not been agreed with me. I wish to raise a point of order with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I not entitled to ask the Government for some explanation, however brief, of why the motion is moved?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is, in fact, objecting to the motion.

Mr. Rhodes James: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I allowed to object, or am I allowed to ask for some explanation, however brief, from the responsible Minister of why the motion is being moved? That is my point. In my view it is quite improper that important motions of this kind should be pushed through at this time without explanation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It now remains to be seen whether there is any reply to the hon. Gentleman's question. If there is not, it will be presumed by the Chair that what the hon. Gentleman has said amounts to an objection. Objection taken.

Orders of the Day — COMMUNITY SERVICE BY OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for second Reading read.

Second Reading deferred till tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CONTEMPT (PHILLIMORE REPORT)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman), it might be helpful if I reminded him and the House that, while Standing Order No. 16 permits incidental reference to matters requiring legislative remedy, it is not in accordance with the practice of the House for an Adjournment debate to be founded entirely on such matters. I hope therefore that the hon. Gentleman will address himself, in the main, to the administrative aspects of the Phillimore Report.
In view of recent events, I am sure that no hon. Member will need reminding that references to actions for contempt that are at present before the courts will not be in order.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. John Ryman: I wish to raise the subject of the Phillimore Report on the law of contempt. I am grateful that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is here to explain the Government's position on this important report. As is well known, the eminent committee under Lord Justice Phillimore presented its report on the law of contempt of court in December 1974 and the Government presented a discussion paper last month inviting public and parliamentary discussion of this topic.
In the short time available for this debate, it is impossible to deal with many of the aspects of the Phillimore Report. To summarise, it is a difficult and technical subject of law which has troubled the courts greatly for many years. Lord Justice Phillimore's committee investigated the matter thoroughly, received oral evidence from many eminent persons and came to certain conclusions.
Those conclusions affect both civil and criminal law and reveal certain difficulties and deficiencies in the operation of the law of contempt as it stands. The Green Paper recognised this fact and said, in effect, that it was a difficult subject which


required discussion and careful examination, that the law of contempt was necessary for all sorts of very good reasons and that the freedom of the Press, while paramount, involved a measure of restraint. The Green Paper said:
As Phillimore pointed out, the crucial question is what measure of restraint is required. In all evidence received by Phillimore and others, there was no suggestion that the law was wrong in principle. Anxiety was, however, expressed about the uncertainty of its scope and application.
The heart of the matter appears to be, as the Phillimore Report said:
Our review of the law of contempt made it clear to us that in some important areas it fails short of the certainty it ought to have. This is especially true of these parts of the law which affect the Press.
It went on to give the explanation for this state of affairs.
One of the most serious aspects of the law of contempt that the Government must consider is that it operates in such a way that in certain cases, particularly civil cases, the Press is unfairly muzzled and prevented from commenting on matters of legitimate public interest.
It is highly significant that we are debating this topic while the court in Strasbourg is hearing an important appeal on contempt in what is colloquially referred to as the thalidomide case. This was a piece of litigation which occupied the time of the courts in this country for a long time and raised many important points of public policy.
What I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to do tonight is to say what view the Government have formed initially of this report. We have had now a period of three and a half years for this report to be considered, but the discussion document which has emerged—an excellent document and I congratulate its authors—gives no lead as to what the Government's thinking on the law of contempt is. It states the position accurately and succinctly and says, for example, in paragraph 5 on page 2:
The main issues arising from the Phillimore recommendations concern:—

(a) the starting point for strict liability for contempt in both criminal and civil proceedings;
(b) certain proposed offences against strict liability;
(c) the extent of liability for prejudice intentionally caused; and

(d) the extent to which litigants may be subjected to pressure and influence."

It adds two additional factors which will have to be taken into account. The first is the case at the European Court of Human Rights, which started yesterday and to which I have referred, and the second is the Law Commission's report on offences relating to the administration of justice. All of these are highly significant matters.
The Government, in the course of the White Paper, having stated that the Phillimore recommendations are not seriously objected to in any substantial way, although individual criticisms could be made of one or two—I am abbreviating this for the purposes of the debate—put the alternatives which could exist instead of implementing the proposals made by Lord Justice Phillimore. In paragraph 15, on page 6 of the White Paper, the Government say:
Among the possible alternatives to the Phillimore recommendations are:—
then there is a list of five specific courses of action which would be open to those seeking to reform the law.
Against that background I have a question to put to the Attorney-General. The Government have considered this report for three and a half years. Do they in principle accept the report of the Phillimore Committee? Do they agree in principle that it is necessary to reform the law of contempt, difficult and technical though this is? Do the Government agree with Lord Justice Phillimore that the present law of contempt is not precise enough in the sense that there are technical difficulties which may arise in individual cases which make it uncertain whether contempt arises at all?
I apprehend that the Attorney-General has many cases referred to him complaining of alleged contempt and may or may not take up individual complaints referred to him according to whether he and his advisers consider that contempt has been committed. I respectfully suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that the present law is unsatisfactory and, above all, particularly in civil cases, the borderline of what is contempt and what is not is not sufficiently clearly defined.
That point was stated very succinctly and graphically by an eminent Law Lord, Lord Diplock, in the thalidomide case


which is referred to in paragraph 6 of the Phillimore Report. Lord Diplock said:
There is an abundance of empirical decisions upon particular instances of conduct which have been held to constitute contempt of court. There is a dearth of rational explanation or analysis of a general concept for contempt of court which is common to cases where it has been found to exist. This is not surprising since, until the Administration of Justice Act 1960, there was no appeal in cases of criminal contempt against the decisions of those of the courts of first instance whose main function is to reach decisions upon the particular facts presented to them in the particular case with which they are dealing.
Putting it another way, what the noble Lord was saying was that there are many examples of the courts having decided that certain facts constituted contempt but that there are no overall, guiding definitions and precise principles which make it clear to newspapers, reporters and all concerned in the media with reporting events exactly where freedom of speech ends and contempt begins.
In my respectful submission, that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I fully recognise that it is both a difficult and a technical subject, but the Government must grasp the nettle and give a lead in the discussion which they have now invited. I hope that the Leader of the House will enable a full day's debate to take place on the subject. It is quite impossible in the space of half an hour to deal with a report as comprehensive and as detailed as this or with a subject as complex as this. The time has now come when the Government, having invited public and parliamentary discussion, should state clearly and unambiguously what their feelings are about the matter.
We are aware of the difficulties, but despite those difficulties the Government should give a lead in the matter. Having stated in this excellent White Paper the pros and cons of the Phillimore recommendations, and having put forward alternative suggestions, the time has now come when the Government should say clearly where they stand on these important matters.

11.16 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): I have listened with considerable interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman) and taken careful note of what he has had to say on this, as he

rightly says, difficult subject. He has performed a particularly useful service, because the Government are most anxious to get a debate started on the Phillimore Report.
As my hon. Friend knows, many have criticised the Government for not having legislated, but few have, like my hon. Friend, actually initiated debate, and informed debate is much needed if we are to reach the right answers. I assure him that the Government agree entirely that it is necessary to reform the law of contempt. The Government agree entirely that the present law is not precise enough.
As for the many cases which my hon. Friend rightly says are referred to me, in only a very small proportion of them do I decide to bring the matter before the court, although some of those seem to raise a great deal of controversy. But I suspect that that discretion will still be needed and will still be difficult, however much the law may be made certain and changed.
The Government have welcomed the proposals of the Phillimore Committee as a useful survey of this difficult branch of the law. The House would want me to thank those who, under the late Sir Henry Phillimore, have produced so valuable a survey. Many of the Phillimore recommendations are relatively uncontroversial. There are altogether 35 recommendations, but, as I explained in reply to my hon. Friend's questions on 10th April, the report raises certain points of particular difficulty upon which we are not yet satisfied that the Committee struck the right balance. Indeed, there have been several cases decided in the courts, since the Committee reported, which might well have affected its thinking on some of these issues if they had occurred before the Committee reported. In Scotland, the important case of Hall, which is to be considered by a full bench of the High Court of Justiciary, may well provide further help.
There is a tendency in some quarters to regard contempt of court as a sort of Establishment weapon for silencing the free flow of comment and information, and for making the task of the media more difficult. It is said "If only Phillimore were implemented, all would be well". I wish it were as simple as that. In this field there is always a difficult balance to strike. The freedom of the public to be


informed is, of course, a vital freedom, in which the Press and the other media play a vital part, which I applaud. It is an essential part of democracy. But the right of the citizen to a fair trial is also vital and, of course, essential in a democracy.
It is my duty, and that of the other Law Officers, to safeguard both freedoms. Indeed, they should be complementary and not antagonistic. I make no apology for approaching the subject with special care and caution. The central Phillimore recommendations raise difficult and important issues on the delicate balance between these two public interests. We have heard much from the media, and it is right that we should, about the public interest in freedom of information. But, as yet, there has been too little explanation of the needs of the other major public interest involved, the fair administration of justice. That is why the Government decided that the right course was to place the central issues before Parliament and the public in a Green Paper for informed discussion. That is what we have done. We are not, as some suggest, seeking to make the law more restrictive. We keep an open mind, but the basic question to which we seek an answer is whether the central Phillimore recommendations go too far in favour of free Press to the detriment of fair trial.
The Green Paper raises four main questions for discussion. I should say a word about each. But I must first emphasise an essential aspect of the Phillimore Report, since it affects them all, especially in relation to strict liability. Phillimore recommended a new definition of contempt. It is, I believe, generally accepted that the present test of contempt is whether the words complained of create a serious risk that the course of justice may be interfered with. Phillimore changed the emphasis. It recommended a new test—whether the words complained of create a risk that the course of justice will be seriously impeded or or prejudiced. This change in definition alone would significantly shift the balance in favour of freedom of information. It alone would markedly reduce the area of uncertainty to which my hon. Friend rightly referred. That is the background against which the four questions must be examined.
The first question is when the law of contempt should begin to impose strict liability for publication in criminal and civil proceedings. The present rule in England and Wales, which differs somewhat from the Scottish position, is that liability for contempt begins when proceedings are "imminent". This was criticised by Phillimore as being unacceptably uncertain and, because of that uncertainty as unnecessarily inhibiting the freedom of the Press. I do not think that there is dissent about that. The Committee was attracted by the logic of the view, expressed by an Australian judge, that
contempt of court is historically and by its name and nature concerned with the position of courts, with proceedings in court and with the protection of parties to proceedings in court ".
It therefore accepted a simple test. Conduct prejudicial to the course of justice should be regarded as contempt of court only if the proceedings to which the conduct relates have formally started and have not been completed. It followed that in criminal proceedings the starting point for strict liability should be the moment when the accused man is charged or a summons served. It took the time of charge as the most readily identifiable point of time and, therefore, the most acceptable.
The Committee fully acknowledge that there were strong arguments the other way. It has often been said that there is no logical dividing line which determines when prejudice may start to arise. Examples arise of the truth of the well-known saying, that
it is possible very effectually to poison the fountain of justice before it begins to flow".
Should then the pursuit of certainty carry greater weight than the risk of serious prejudice to a subsequent trial?
Therefore, the question here is whether Phillimore would swing the pendulum too far. To an accused person it may be just as important to be protected from prejudice during the period immediately before he is charged, when public interest in the crime is strong, as it is after a charge has been formally laid.
There is another public interest here, apart from that of the accused person. It is important also that the guilty should not go free because the prosecuting authorities do not believe that a fair trial can be guaranteed. It is important that


a guilty man's conviction is not set aside on the grounds that he did not receive a fair trial; and it is right that the innocent should not be denied the opportunity to clear his name.
The Government, as I have said, keep an open mind. But we are not yet satisfied that a starting point as late as the formal charge is fair to the accused person. Some recent cases have shown that where there is a substantial delay between the commission of an offence and the time when a person is charged with it, widely published material, whether fact or comment, can seriously prejudice a subsequent trial.
I shall leave this aspect of the problem by putting a hypothetical case by way of illustration. Would it be right for a dramatised mock trial of an actual murder case to be shown on television when it is known that the police are seeking to find and arrest a particular person, not yet formally charged, with a view to his subsequent trial for murder?
The problems of prejudicial comment do not apply so acutely in civil proceedings. The Government are not opposed in principle to the majority recommendation of the Phillimore Committee that the starting point for liability should be the stage of setting down. There are, however, practical difficulties about the application of this recommendation. It is not altogether easy to determine an equivalent stage to setting down in the High Court for civil proceedings where there is no setting down procedure. Our aim is clear. It is to devise a rule which will confer the benefit of both simplicity and certainty in its day-to-day working.
The second main question is about defences. Phillimore considered that a publication which creates a risk of serious prejudice to legal proceedings can yet be justified if it is a fair and accurate report of the proceedings in open court, or if it is part of a legitimate discussion on a matter of general public interest. The Government have serious doubts about whether all the problems involved in these defences have been fully appreciated.
The proposal exempting fair and accurate reports of court proceedings was prompted by doubts which had arisen in the Poulson and Kray cases where there were widespread reports of proceedings against persons who were likely to be tried

on other charges in the near future. The proposal broadly corresponded with what the law had previously been thought to be. But it has turned out to be by no means entirely straightforward. An accurate report of legal proceedings may include matters discussed in the absence of the jury which ought not to be reported in newspapers whilst the trial is in progress.
The Border Television case earlier this year provides an example of this. The accused pleaded guilty to some counts in the indictment and was tried on others of a similar nature. The pleas of guilty were reported. The judge stopped the trial and sent it elsewhere. He thought that essential for a fair trial. The Divisional Court agreed and found a contempt established.
The proceedings in 1975 against the Socialist Worker newspaper for disclosing the names of witnesses in a blackmail case were another example. In commenting on that case Phillimore proposed that the judge should be given a statutory power to prohibit, in the public interest, the publication of names or other matters arising at a trial. But such a power would have to be framed in the most general terms if it is to ensure that in all cases of genuine need a judge's request for non-disclosure would always be heeded. This is a very difficult problem. The Socialist Worker case came too late to receive more than passing reference in Phillimore. Its implications deserve serious study.
The proposed defence of general public discussion is intended to preserve the public interest in uninterrupted discussion of the issues of the day. All would agree that public discussion of important issues should not be stifled, perhaps for years. But, given the new test of serious prejudice, this seems unlikely to occur unless the discussion focuses closely on particular features of the litigation in question. Even with the present test, public discussion on the safety of drugs continued unabated throughout the thalidomide proceedings.
The third major question concerns the Phillimore proposal that it should not be contempt to bring influence or pressure to bear on a party to legal proceedings unless that pressure goes as far as intimidation or unlawful threats to his person, property or reputation and this, of course.
was one of the issues which arose in The Sunday Times case.
The Phillimore recommendation makes no distinction between Press comment and criticism which is fair and temperate and that which is unfair and intemperate. The recommendation would permit both. The Government doubt whether that is right. We are all conscious of the great pressure which, as Phillimore acknowledged, the media can bring to bear on a litigant. Even a really virulent campaign of execration by the media against a litigant, designed to induce him to abandon his claim, would not necessarily be a contempt of court under the rule proposed by Phillimore. It is not entirely easy to follow the basis for this proposal, if it is accepted as a general principle that there is no contempt unless the publication creates a risk of serious prejudice.
In considering this question we shall need to take into account the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, to which my hon. Friend referred—the case which commenced yesterday. We hope to have the judgment during the course of this year.
The fourth main question concerns the Phillimore proposal that conduct which is deliberately intended to prejudice legal proceeding should be treated as contempt only if it relates to specific proceedings, as distinct from the administration of justice generally. The Committee took the view that conduct of the latter type should normally be dealt with as a criminal offence. But it may not be possible for the criminal law always to provide effective remedies. Parliament rightly insists that criminal offences must be framed in specific and restrictive terms. Again, I refer to the Socialist

Worker case, where the newspaper published the names of blackmail victims who, by order of the judge, had not been named in court. The publication could not have prejudiced the particular proceedings, because the witnesses had already given their evidence. Publication was objectionable mainly because if permitted it would tend to deter blackmail victims from giving evidence in future cases. This could, without doubt, prejudice the course of justice as a continuing process.
It is for those reasons that the Government have so far been unable to arrive at firm conclusions on the implementation of the Phillimore proposals. It is for those reasons that before reaching our final decisions we have felt it important to bring these issues into the open by means of the Green Paper so that they may be widely discussed, and so that the Government may have the benefit of informed views upon them.
We are anxious to have the views of all those who are concerned with both freedom of information and fair trial. Both are fundamental human rights. The problem is to reconcile them. I am glad that we have the opportunity to discuss these difficult issues in this House, and I hope that this debate—I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising it—will stimulate further—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Twelve o'clock.